Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> On 19/12/2024 10:36, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> If you are talking about the process, I completely disagree.
>> What we currently have actually works quite well.
> We disagree. But that's ok,
I will sit on the fence here. YOU ARE BOTH RIGHT.
I'd say that the current system *can* work just fine, if we first fix the
backend process.
It probably will occur that we'll *then* come back to fixing the front-end.
It might be that it's not really broken.
The most frustrating thing is having to wait to get the AD to click on the
right buttons. If we fixed only that part, allowing WG chairs (and
delegates) to do all the inputting, then that would probably be a win.
(Even if the AD had to review them all and could click on "approve all". But,
I think we can avoid this requirement for active WGs)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
