At 23:48 06/08/05, Frank Ellermann wrote: >Martin Duerst wrote: > >> I don't think it would be appropriate for the WG to finalize >> the new draft and send it to the IESG before we know that >> ISO 639-3 is really approved, because the fact that it is not >> fully approved may mean that there are some more changes, in >> which case we have to go back and make some changes, too. As >> ISO 639-3 is the major reason for our new work, I wouldn't >> call this an "artificial" dependency. > >We also need more procedural experience with the rules as they >are. The idea of the current recharter proposal is to use whatever procedural experience we have, and make whatever adjustments we think are necessary based on this, rather than to wait until we have enough experience so that we can create the final, perfect procedures. Are you trying to say that this should be changed? >State of the art would be "dump review list as complete >failure wrt Suppress-Script". > >If published today 3066ter should be different from 3066bis wrt >list and review management. E.g. we now need a "MUST" for the >expert reviewer to read the rules (s)he's supposed to follow. I don't think we need to discuss specific adjustments to procedures now, because we don't plan to mention them in the charter. Are you disagreeing with this? Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.