I wasn't discussing the point about whether there should be a process change or not. Rather, I don't think any process, existing or new, of changing the document type can be done in less than 12 months, and I don't think that such change in status will match any market needs for extra identification of active RFCs worthy of implementation.
Therefore essentially in many respects this discussion will achieve nothing. Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 21 April 2012 01:38 > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Cc: Brian E Carpenter; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the Conclusion of Experiments > > On 4/20/12 4:28 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > > Changing something from experimental to proposed standard in a > > process that will probably take 12 months will be unlikely change the > > number of people implementing and deploying an RFC. > > I'm going to take the liberty of mentioning that I spoke with Ron > earlier today about this. Basically what he's asking is that there > be no process changes, and, I think, no policy changes, just > that IESG members should be mindful about how to phase experimental > stuff out when it's flopped. > > Personally, I think he's correct about both cruft and mindfulness > and suspect that probably nearly everybody agrees with what he's > saying, anyway, but unfortunately it was presented in a form that > made it look like More Process. > > Melinda
