On 11/29/12 2:32 PM, George, Wes wrote: > [WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that > *everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should > undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are > currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusion > and inconsistency that has been created by something that is > unspecified and asking "should we specify?" I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a problem. I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify those as a "problem," per se, or that they would be done better with yet another process document. Lo, those many years ago I co-chaired (with Avri Doria) the "problem" working group. It was a very bad experience, and I think left me convinced that dorking around with formalizing process stuff should absolutely not be done unless someone's identified a specific problem that interferes with getting documents out. Process we just don't happen to like is not a problem. Melinda