> --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).
+1
Ned
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
