Frank> In that case I wasn't sure if 12 or 18 months are long
Frank> enough to catch one application of the experiment, but
Frank> apparently 12 months is a hard limit in RfC 3933 (?)
No, I was actually referring to an off-list comment.
I don't believe that 12 months is a hard limit.
Hi, Sam,
I'm assuming that Frank was looking at this text:
1. An I-D is written describing the proposed new or altered
procedure. A statement of the problem expected to be resolved is
desirable but not required (the intent is to keep the firm
requirements for such an experiment as lightweight as possible).
Similarly, specific experimental or evaluative criteria, although
highly desirable, are not required -- for some of the process
changes we anticipate, having the IESG reach a conclusion at the
end of the sunset period that the community generally believes
things to be better (or worse) will be both adequate and
sufficient. The I-D must state an explicit "sunset" timeout
typically, not to exceed one year after adoption.
Now that RFC 3933 is a BCP, IESG gets to decide what this text actually
means in practice, and the community gets to decide whether IESG got it
right, but on the particular issue related to
draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment-00.txt, the concern was that IESG might
agree to an experiment but there is no opportunity to gain experience with
the proposed change in the next twelve months.
Even if it is necessary to be legalistic, I would be disappointed if having
the IESG say "we're going to do this, the next time there's a mailing list
banning action requested" didn't allow the IESG to wait 14 months and carry
out the experiment on the first request - my concern when we submitted this
text was that an experiment might run actively forever without evaluation,
not that an experiment might not start for 14 months.
So, I think I agree with Sam's interpretation in this specific case.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf