Dear IESG,
I'm glad that you are considering this experiment. We certainly heard from
people who expressed discomfort with the current BCP procedures in this area
during recent discussions, and I don't know that very many people were
thrilled with those procedures (especially after we started
I believe sending out a Last Call on this document is:
1) Premature. This version of the document has been with us for all of 10
days, and the previous version since January 24.
2) Inappropriate. The IESG is in the midst of considering a very divisive
issue that has to be decided using the cu
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> make the proposal a topic of the General Area open meeting
> in Dallas, and issue the Last Call after the Dallas meeting.
It's only an experiment relevant for listmoms and WG Chairs.
Nothing like that other case with about 1,000,000 domains and
a community determ
> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Spencer> I agree that IESG can conduct experiments of more than 18
Spencer> months duration under BCP 93, but the specific procedural
Spencer> problem here isn't about an experiment that needs to run
Spencer> for 18 mon
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I believe sending out a Last Call on this document is:
1) Premature. This version of the document has been with us for all of
10 days, and the previous version since January 24.
I think the spirit of RFC 3933 is to get things tried out quickly,
so I don't buy th
I believe sending out a Last Call on this document is:
1) Premature. This version of the document has been with us for all of 10
days, and the previous version since January 24.
2) Inappropriate. The IESG is in the midst of considering a very divisive
issue that has to be decided using the c
I know that these comments are late for IETF LC, but Brian Carpenter
indicated that I should share them here, anyway...
I generally support publication of this draft as an Experimental RFC, and I
hope that the IESG will use this mechanism to support more moderate and more
effective mailing list
(Though I agree with most of what Harald said, I will respond on-list
only to Margaret.)
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I generally support publication of this draft as an Experimental RFC,
I was never able to "support" it; but until the GENAREA meeting, I
regarded it a
John, does the text I proposed to address Margaret's concern (making
it clear that this will not become a permanent BCP), plus the review
requirements proposed by Harald, plus the work started by Brian to
build community consensus on a new set of mailing list procedures help
address your concerns?
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To: John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> John, does the text I proposed to address Margaret's concern (making
> it clear that this will not become a permanent BCP), plus the review
> requirements proposed by Harald, plus the work started by Brian to
> build
10 matches
Mail list logo
