ned success criteria, and I do
not think that this document meets that requirement.
Margaret
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:00 PM
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: [
> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Margaret> This document defines an RFC3933 experiment in which we
Margaret> would temporarily give the IESG the authority to create
Margaret> new mailing list management procedures and enact them.
Margaret> The only
sserman
> Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-art review
> ofdraft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt
>
> >>>>> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Margaret> This document
There is an interesting lesson to be learned from our mailing list
management situation...
The mailing list procedures draft currently under discussion
(draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-01.txt) contains the following correct
assessment of our current mailing list management situation:
"R
The tracker tracks
the RFC Editor note was modified (by me) on July 24, 2004. The reason
was a comment from Ted Hardie on July 21, augumenting a DISCUSS from
Steve Bellovin:
Steve (DISCUSS):
>he last paragraph of Section 2 should explain the relationship of this
document to RFC 3683.
Hi Harald,
> The tracker tracks
Sorry, I didn't realize where I would find RFC Editor notes in the public
tracker. I have now been properly educated.
> the RFC Editor note was modified (by me) on July 24, 2004.
> The reason was a comment from Ted Hardie on July 21,
> augumenting a DISCU
