On 12/2/12 2:56 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> That's is true. But I would prefer to accept a I+D as WG item until
> we are sure that we are somehow committed to follow the path
> described/proposed in the document. Accepting the document assuming that
> chairs are going to turn bad ideas to good in my opinio is not good.
A couple of points: the main one is that I have absolutely no
idea where this "bad ideas" thing is coming from, because there
are a number of reasons why we wouldn't want to publish a document
other than that it contains bad ideas and I'm going to question
both your association of not-working-group drafts with bad ideas
and working group drafts with good ones ('cause, seriously, folks ...).
But the other one is that you seem to be using "working group
draft" and "working group item (deliverable?)" interchageably, and
I really don't think they're the same thing at all.
Melinda