On 2012-04-20 16:12, Stewart Bryant wrote: > On 20/04/2012 14:36, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> What about the idea of requiring new Experimental documents to include >> text that indicates when the experiment is to be considered completed >> absent new work on it? Essentially, the document declares a date by >> which the experiment is considered concluded, and code points >> automatically deprecated, and the document itself goes to Historic >> status, unless some other document action updates the deadline or >> moves the work to the Standards Track. > If you factor in the historic success rate that engineers typically have > in predicting s/w development schedules, I would expect that the overrun > rate on predicted end exp dates would be close to 100%, even after > several extensions. Exactly. This whole discussion seems to be about over-engineering a small corner of the IETF process that isn't a particular source of practical problems anyway, afaik. So, the standard question: what's the problem that needs solving here? Brian