Harald Alvestrand wrote: > 9/10 of all drafts are trashed by the quite effective mechanism > of waiting 6 months... no need for dramatic action..... Depends, that 3710-thingy was quite spicy, and all I know about "cancels" in the tools.ietf.org archive is that it's possible. > - supporters are distinct human beings WP:SOCK is okay... > - supporters are willing to offer proof of identity to a > secretariat function of the IETF ...difficult, it reminds me of Usenet CSVs. What do you have in mind, a phone number offered for a verification call ? They would need to support different plausibility checks wrt WP:SOCK > I might even toss in "has contributed to at least one IETF > mailing list he's subscribed to". That's simpler. > The important point (to me) would be to shift appealants from > a mode of "I am the lone voice of reason - if I am allowed to > carry my arguments forward in front of a higher body, Truth > and Justice will prevail" to a mode where appealants think > "I need to check with a few other people that I'm right before > progressing - perhaps my arguments are not compelling, or > perhaps I even might be wrong". > It may cause reasonable people who are upset to think twice, MAY as in "maybe not" ;-) Maybe it's simpler today if folks find the "procdoc-roadmap" with some bloody details not covered by the new Tao. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf