Re: WG Review: Arts and Humanities (arts)

[Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <[e-mail]>]

Maybe I'm too late but I fully concur with Mike. I don't see what
this has to do with protocol standards development.

Folks, we badly need an Internet Users Forum where this sort
of work would be highly appropriate and useful. I've been trying to
say this for a couple of years and the evidence is stronger every
day. But the ISOC in its wisdom decided to ignore this a while back.
It's also decided to ignore operational coordination.
An Internet Summit is so much sexier. ME NOT HAPPY.

  Brian

>--------- Text sent by Michael St. Johns follows:
> 
> Folks - this stretches even my definition of the IETF.  While I'd like
> to be open, I have to ask where this is going and where it will all
> end.  I can see next a WG devoted to PetNET or to any of a number of
> worthy, but spcific communities.
> 
> I'd like to suggest a no vote on this request with the reason of
> lack of broad applicability.  The documents produced won't apply to
> all or most sites (as is generally the case for the User Services docs
> that are non-standards in nature).  
> 
> Mike
>