--On Tuesday, June 08, 2010 22:41 -0400 Tony Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Didn't we consider and reject this option when we were working
> on the charter. I don't think the situation has changed
> sufficiently to warrant changing our mechanisms.
Yep. We did. See my previous posting to the list, but I'd like
to see even a modicum of evidence that something important is
being missed or lost before adding more process and delays to a
WG that is already running --in part because of the slow
evaluation process on the pre-eval documents-- much more slowly
than anyone anticipated.
Frankly, there is a case to be made that the YAM idea of
advancing these documents quickly and with a minimum of pain has
already been proven a failure. For example, if I had any idea
that the WG really wouldn't be ready for me to open 5321bis
before June 2010, I might have opposed the whole idea at the
beginning. This much process is just not what I'm aware of
anyone signing up for.
john
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
