Agree with sentiment, don't agree with suggested fix.
At 05:07 11.11.99 -0800, Dennis Glatting wrote:
>For every case I can put before you of documents that need closure I
>can put before you documents that have excelled from prolonged
>exposure. The IPsec documents are great examples of documents that
>have excelled.
I am not terribly happy about process management using hard time limits.
I would suggest an alternate procedure:
At any time in the IETF process, any participant in the IETF can request
that work items be removed from a WG's charter, and that relevant
internet-drafts be reclassified as personal contributions.
Lack of forward progress is one of several valid reasons to raise such a
request.
If the WG has rough consensus on this, OR the relevant AD and WG chair
agree, these work items will be deleted from the WG's charter.
A WG that has no work items will be closed.
Not unsurprisingly, this doesn't need a rule change, just willingness on
the part of those who worry to stand up and be tomato target while the
consensus is worked out.
"Share the load! You too can be a target!"
Harald A
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
