> On 2012-04-19 23:27, Ronald Bonica wrote: > ... > > I think that this is a case-by-case judgment call. In some cases (e.g., RFC 1475), the experiment is clearly over. IMO, allowing RFC 1475 to retain EXPERIMENTAL status detracts from the credibility of current experiments that share the label. > I agree that it is case by case, so I don't really see the value in the > IESG statement. If it's appropriate to write an experiment-terminating > RFC, do so; if it's inappropriate, don't bother. That doesn't need > any new legislation. While I agree 100% that this needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis, I also think that it's an issue that always needs to be addressed when an experiment ends. So some sort of statement saying that the handling of any allocations associated with the experiment must be resolved when the experiment ends might be appropriate. Or not - this could just be something to add to some checklist somewhere. (We do have checklists for this sort of thing, right?) Ned