Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





--On 7. mars 2004 17:07 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Harald,

HTA> In the steady state (30 docs/month, currently), perhaps 30
man-hours/month


30 documents go to Proposed each month?


The steady-state rate of review is the average number of documents that
go to Proposed.  (well, ok, the average of the number that went to
proposed 2 years ago.

apologies - wrong number - I was counting documents, not standards-track docs. standards-track are slightly more than half that, I think.
check the numbers from Allison's presentation - she is a more careful statistician than I am.


In any event, we can distinguish documents that newly come up to their
2-year limit, versus dusting out the closet of those that already hit 2
years, before this.

Keeping up with the new documents reaching their limit is the
critical-path activity. Dusting out the closet can take as long as we
want.

I'd like to tackle both - it seems silly to have all this garbage cluttering up the history while applying exacting criteria to the ones that had the "luck" to be passed exactly two years ago.


If we have the consensus of the community that we SHOULD reclassify the documents, then the dusting out is "just work".

Besides, we should learn something from the experience of going through the backlog - there have been a couple of attempts at single-document downgrading already, and at least one met with resistance from people feeling that their document was "singled out for harsh treatment" (RFC 1628, UPS MIB, 1994), while reclassification of RFC 1314 (Image file format, 1992) as Informational was uncontroversial when Patrik and I tried it back in 1999 or thereabouts.
(Both are still listed in the index as Proposed, however....)


Harald




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]