On Tue May 24 2005 09:18, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > On Tue May 24 2005 08:35, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > > At 5:57 PM -0400 5/10/05, Bruce Lilly wrote: > > > >OK, I'll bite -- where are the statistics (I know of one > > WG that has been > > > >active for more than 8 years and has set to produce a > > single document for > > > >IESG review; that's got to skew the statistics a bit)? > I can't talk to whatever went on in USEFOR prior to 2004, but I have > appointed two new co-chairs to help the group evaluate and meet it's > goals. Something (either document production or a working group action) > should happen within the next few months. I should clarify a few points: 1. sorry for the typo in the original "set" should be "yet" 2. the intent was not to cast aspersions on the cognizant ADs (past or present) or WG Chairs (past or present), or to discuss possible causes for the situation -- indeed, obviously I didn't even name the WG until asked -- but merely to observe that the history of at least one WG seemed to be out of whack with what was asserted was shown by some statistics. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf