Harald, >> 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. HTA> I'd like to tackle both - it seems silly to have all this garbage My comment did not suggest that older Proposed documents be ignored. What I said was that they can be dealt with differently from the "steady state" handling required to handle new documents, as they come to their time limit. For doing project planning, there is a very big difference between on-going requirements and start-up requirements. Both urgency and resource allocation can be quite different. HTA> If we have the consensus of the community that we SHOULD reclassify the HTA> documents, then the dusting out is "just work". The amount of work required can affect people's willingness to support doing a project. Overestimating can make the task seem more daunting than necessary and thereby reduce support. Underestimating can set unrealistic expectation and thereby cause community frustration later. For that matter, a community in crisis about timeliness, productivity, accountability and funding might wonder how a particular proposal affects any of these urgent problems, especially when the community is severely resource limited. There are many good proposals, but scarce resources mandates setting priorities. d/ -- Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>