--On Wednesday, February 09, 2011 18:49 +0000 Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote:
>... > These are my two preferred choices. Details of the new charter > don't matter to me that much, as long as the process > experiment part is removed. > My personal (not-as-an-AD) preferences are to do some > combination of B) and C). > >... >> B) We could review the documents that were in the >> original YAM charter. For any that we feel need to be >> revved no matter what (for example, 3798 MDN (one of my >> documents) is in this list), we can proceed with revising >> them. >> >> C) We start taking a look at the Proposed Standard >> mail-related standards and see what they need to moved >> forward to the next status. For whatever my opinion is worth, I think it would be worth taking a look at (C). If there are documents at Proposed that would benefit from a review of features and interoperability, that is useful work regardless of what happens with the standards process. For anything else, it would be good to have two-step sufficiently resolved that we knew what the targets were that we had to meet (of course, the intent of the process experiment was precisely to resolve that on a per-document basis, so, while the experiment may be dead, the need for it is not... unless we are to conclude that the IESG simply isn't interested in advancing documents other than on a "guess what we are likely to want" basis). john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
