"inactive" seems too weak but "expired" seems too strong. How about "retired". Something can always come out of retirement...
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 11:47 AM Bill Gage <billgage.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1
Maybe "inactive" rather than "expired" or "unsupported"?
/bill
On 2024-12-11 6:07 p.m., Joel Halpern wrote:
> If we could easily make small changes, I could live with changing
> "expires" to "unsupported". I like the fact that drafts fall off
> working group indices when they are more than 6 months old with change.
> I grant that they don't really expire, and that claiming they do so can
> confuse some people. Having said that, we seem to be unable to agree on
> even small thigns :-)
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
> On 12/11/2024 5:55 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 2:25 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Rob Sayre wrote on 11/12/2024 22:00:
>> > I find the "expiration" (does not expire, it can just be on GitHub)
>> > policy to be something that concerns overly officious people.
>>
