It appears that touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: >>> I'd like us to get rid of the "expires in six months" myth. > >I felt the original intent had significant merit, but was undermined by permanent archive and access of drafts. I was under the impression that the original intent of six months was to prevent the disk on an FTP server from filling up forty years ago. >why people can’t be convinced to simply have another look at a document twice a year, update what needs to be updated, and resubmit. Yes, the resubmission may take 10 >minutes, but there is only one mandatory resubmission per period versus a large number of people that will benefit from this periodic review. I'm sure I am not the only person here who has a script that increments the version number and resubmits a draft. While it only takes about 15 seconds, it strikes me as performative silliness. If there's stuff to change in a draft and it might be of interest to other people, I'll update it. >I can’t speak for others, but I gave up on that years ago. I update a doc when it needs updating, not simply because it “expires” by a self-contradictory process that >also archives them permanently. Yes, exactly. R's, John
