Subject: RE: [newtrk] Making the standards process more efficient

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:14:52 +0200

W.r.t. 

> If we believe there is ANY benefit in the periodic evaluation described 
> in 2026, having a document that actually lives for the right period (not 
> six months, and not forever) seems like table stakes.

Just in case we continue to use RFC2026 (and I am not claiming we should),
w.r.t. the "we never do the periodic evaluation described in 2026", I would
say that there might probably be a lot more incentive of WGs and document 
editors/authors to start the evaluation process if we made it so that a PS 
can be elevated to DS after 6 months (as is today), but that we would 
automagically make it HISTORIC if nothing happens after 2 years (whereas
current 2026 is silent on what happens if no one actually does do the
evaluation).

Bert
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html