Re: [newtrk] Re: IESG comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I agree with David that asking the IESG to take on more work (to push the 
> remaining docs up the track) is a non-starter. The IESG's job in this context 
> is (I think) to make it possible for other people to do the job.

I agree with this view.  The more work that we can find non-IESG 
people to do, the better :). If the IESG processes hundreds of 
documents per year, I fail to see how processing one (on decrufting) 
per year (or thereabouts) would be a problem.

On the other hand, in the past people HAVE written "Request to move 
XXX to historic" - documents.  I'd expect that this process could be 
used instead for many of those, so the total number of documents to 
process could be even lower.  Also, each WG might not need to spend 
time arguing whether it's worth the effort to move docs to historic by 
"request to move" RFCs, and could possibly use this process instead.

What could, on the other hand, imply more work for the IESG is pushing 
documents up in the standards track -- but this experiment hasn't 
really been about that (IMHO). (The more work would be caused by 
additional IETF last calls, judging the consensus, evaluating the 
implementation reports, having to read standards track revisions more 
carefully, etc.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html