Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In theory the idea of trying to recognize a broader class of sufficiently
> involved participants sounds good.
okay.
> The details did not seem to work for me, but I am happy to wait and see the
> next version of a specific proposal.
Is it for the formula for remaining eligible, or was it the specific things
that constitute a "contribution"?
Do you think that the things which are a "contribution" should be maintained
outside of BCP10 in some way?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature