On 1/19/2004 3:47 PM, Vernon Schryver 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. ... > >> 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 ... > > Let's see if I've got all of this straight: No (although I'm not really sure you tried). "Ad-hoc" isn't supposed to mean 'anything goes', but about providing an alternative channel to BOFs. I'm sure there was a time where discouraging potentially frivolous efforts by imposing a high cost of entry was considered a positive benefit of the design. It still might be. If the objective is to broaden the scope and quantity of documents to be published, however, lowering that bar would be useful. Speaking for myself and others, getting volunteer part-timers from multiple different continents to the same meeting is a pain, and the payoff is so far into the future and marginal that it usually isn't worth the cost involved. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/