Hi - > From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 5:59 AM > Subject: Re: Work effort? (Re: Proposed Standard and Perfection) > > I spent more time trying to capture what people were saying at the > plenary than trying to figure out who said what, but I would like to > figure out who said > > [06:43:24] <anewton> too much time needed to take something out there > and take it back to historic. > [06:43:44] <anewton> suggests steps for things to automatically go > historic. > [06:43:48] <anewton> harald. > [06:43:55] --- AWGY has joined > [06:44:20] <anewton> perhaps have someone else beside IESG do leg > work. > [06:44:36] <anewton> ??. > > on Thursday night - sound familiar to anyone? The last name mentioned > in the logs was John Loughney, then Harald replied, and then SOMEONE > said "too much time needed..." I'd love to find who who said this. ... I made the comment that I thought we should apply RFC 2026 and force things to either advance or go historic. Our AD advised us in one case that if our WG wanted one of its RFCs to go historic, we had to write another RFC explaining why. The procedure in RFC 2026 section 6.2 (last paragraph) seems very reasonable, and I like Harald's suggested approach to cleaning up the cruft. Randy