Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > [Lars Eggert wrote:] >> On Apr 19, 2012, at 22:31, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >>> The IESG has been discussing how to tidy up after Experimental RFCs.
The IESG (IMHO) feels it has a responsibility to manage Experiments it starts. This is evidenced by the care they take to craft a path by which Experimental RFCs can be backed out. "Tidy up after" may not quite capture their intent here. They want results of experiments to be documented, and they want experiments they start to conclude. >>> We have developed the following draft IESG statement. This does not >>> represent a change in process, and continues to value Experimental RFCs >>> as an important part of the IETF process. It does, however, seek to >>> encourage documentation of the conclusion of experiments. This statement captures the IESG intent better, though it omits to state "experiments the IESG is responsible for". >> any IESG statement would only cover Experimental RFCs on the IETF Stream, >> right? > > Clearly the IESG does not have authority over the IRTF stream. Hopefully this clarification remedies that omission. ==== I don't really have an opinion on how the IESG should manage IETF-stream experiments. Suggestions on how to manage IESG-stream experiments would be helpful here. I would hope that opinions on how IRTF-stream experiments should be managed will find a different thread, ideally in a different list. -- John Leslie <j...@jlc.net>
