Re: [newtrk] a crufty last call

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

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.

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