Re: [newtrk] a crufty last call

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

--On 14. oktober 2004 08:58 -0400 Margaret Wasserman 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi All,
>
>> consider this question
>>	"should this working group develop process(es) with the aims
>>	 described in the ID draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt?"
>
> I'll go against the grain with a "no" vote.
>
> I am not against the idea of moving documents that shouldn't be on the
> standards track to Historic, but I don't see any reason why we need a WG
> to develop processes to do that.  Nor do I understand why we need an
> officially constituted committee.
>
> It is my opinion that if the main advocates of this work had chosen to
> spend their time and effort doing the actual work of moving crufty drafts
> to Historic instead of arguing about an official "procedure" for doing
> it, we'd be done now.

If Eliot, by himself, had come up with a writeup to the IESG proposing to 
move 100 documents to Historic, without having had an IETF discussion that 
such was a good idea, would you have supported the action unconditionally?
Would the rest of the IESG?

I HOPE this is a rhetorical question - large shifts in how the IETF does 
business need community review before we put them into practice.

                        Harald


.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html