>>>>> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Spencer> I agree that IESG can conduct experiments of more than 18
Spencer> months duration under BCP 93, but the specific procedural
Spencer> problem here isn't about an experiment that needs to run
Spencer> for 18 months, it's about an experiment that may not
Spencer> start for several months (because the IESG needs to
Spencer> receive a suspension request in order to start the
Spencer> experiment).
Spencer> Could I suggest that the IESG (perhaps "also") say "the
Spencer> clock on this experiment doesn't start until we actually
Spencer> receive a suspension request"?
Spencer> The goal of the "sunset" language was to prevent an
Spencer> experiment from running forever, not to run a clock while
Spencer> nothing is being experimented with.
As much of this experiment is in defining procedures as it is in
running those procedures. So, to be useful, the IESG would have to
actually approve a procedure for mailing list management under this
experiment.
That can happen immediately and debugging that process is half the
battle^h^h^hfun.
I would not object to the proposed change you make. I just want to
point out it is more complicated.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf