Sam,
we have some differences of opinion on how these things work, and how
they are supposed to work.
But I'll try to be constructive.
I think that in any experiment that involves giving someone the power to
set procedures, there MUST be some words on how those procedures are set
(the
Harald == Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The primary reason you want to encourage meta-experiments is that a
lot of the hypotheses you want to test involve delegation. For
example I want to test the hypothesis that the right way to solve the
mailing list
Hi.
I am going to take my gen-art hat off here because I want to suggest
alternatives rather than just assessments.
I have no inherent problem with what we are calling meta-experiments,
although there are issues regarding whether the community will feel
comfortable with just granting the
Hi.
Sam Hartman wrote:
I am happy to make a change similar to the one you propose in section
1.
I'm happy to split the parts of section 4 dealing with what the IESG
might do into their own section as an example.
That's fine by me.. it should make a self-consistent document.
I do not want
Elwyn == Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Elwyn I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for
Elwyn this specification (for background on Gen-ART, please see
Elwyn http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Hi.
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get
I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Document: draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt
Intended Status: Experimental (RFC3933 Process Experiment)
Shepherding
