Re: Documents need to conclude

[Dennis Glatting <dennis.glatting at software-munitions.com>]

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> At 05:07 AM 11/11/99 -0800, Dennis Glatting wrote:
> >Therefore, I offer to you this rule to consider:
> >
> >         Once something is committed to paper in a WG a timer
> >         starts. The document has 24 months (6 IETF sessions)
> >         to either be sent to the IESG for advancement or
> >         with WG consensus the Chair petitions the AD for a
> >         two session extension, which can be extended in the
> >         same manner again. Otherwise the document is
> >         withdrawn.
> >
> >I believe this rule to add something the IETF sorely needs but is
> >unfair to impose: a little bit of project management. It's advantage
> >is very low overhead.
> 
> It is not clear that this needs to be a "rule". It seems to me
> that, if an IETF member thinks that a WG draft has been alive too
> long, a letter to the WG chair with a Cc to the AD should be
> sufficient. I am hesitant to have a "rule" as compared to a "best
> current practice".
> 

Poor word choice on my part. s/rule/process/ :)


-dpg