On 1/19/2004 1:01 PM, Bob Braden wrote: > Not all important ideas enter the working group process and emerge > as standards, and the fact that some working group chooses not to > "capture" an document does not make it necessarily unworthy of > preservation. After all, the technical problems evolve, and our > solutions need to evolve too; ideas that did not make it at one > stage may turn out to be important in the future. Another approach here is to allow for the creation of ad-hoc WGs. That would provide a cleaner path for tangential documents that don't fit within existing charters, and would facilitate broader group review of independent submissions. Speaking for myself, I've written some drafts that I would have liked to seen progressl, but didn't fit in existing WGs, and the requirements for new WGs were too stringent to pursue. This latter issue is also one of the reasons behind the relatively low involvement from the developing-world community, and exacerbates the feelings of powerlessness and resentment that end up costing us recovery time fighting off the well-meaning fools who would make this problem worse by handing control to organizations with even higher barriers of entry. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/