--On Tuesday, August 10, 2010 08:47 -0700 SM <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 21:01 09-08-10, Tony Hansen wrote: >> At the end of the meeting, three questions were discussed: >> >> 1) should the YAM working group continue working at its >> current rate on its current doc set? >> 2) should the YAM working group "hit the pause button"? >> 3) should the YAM working group shut down? >> >> Absolutely no one supported the last item, #3. However, the >> room was fairly evenly split between support for both #1 and >> #2. > > Option #1 could be rewritten as "will the document editors > continue working on the documents at the current rate". Yes. As I pointed out in Maastricht, the document authors could force #2 by the simple expedient of doing nothing for a while. That particular pause could be ended by firing the document editors and finding new ones. I doubt that would be productive. Certainly, as one of those authors, I would prefer a WG decision to pause than having to face the question of whether I could get motivated under the circumstances. But getting me motivated while the status of the standards track is uncertain would be quite difficult given competing demands on time (including Ned's comments, the EAI work, etc.). > Option #1 could also be rewritten as - "will the IESG evaluate > the pre-evaluation I-Ds and drafts submitted by the YAM > working group painlessly and in a timely manner". I think we already have an empirical answer to that question, unless, of course, the fact of community discussion of the Two Track proposal(s) somehow inspire the IESG to more efficient (or painless and timely) processing of those documents. >... best, john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
