Subject: Re: A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:32:04 +0200

...
>> Finally, I think there's a meta-issue here, related to the
>> lifetime of the experiment.  While the proposed experiment has
>> limited lifetime, its effects will be more-or-less permanent.
>> I think for an experiment of this sort, it may be appropriate
>> to limit the number of documents to which it can be applied
>> before some analysis must be done to determine whether it is
>> appropriate to proceed further.
> 
> 
> I'm  not convinced this is necessary, but have no objection.

I really don't see how to fix a limit. Even if the experiment
produces a gold rush of promotions to DS, who's to say that
25 documents would be OK and 26 would be too many? All we
are "risking" here is that the Internet continues to rely
normatively on PS documents, after all. My pesronal opinion
is that this is a zero risk experiment.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:34:51 +0200

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> At 02:23 PM 3/31/2006, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> 
>>In the discussion of John Klensin's i-d, the distinction was made
>>between i-ds as "works-in-progress" and (post protocol action
>>announcement) "works-in-editing".  I think this is a valid distinction.
> 
> 
> While there certainly is a distinction in terms of process
> state, as technical changes are often made post-IESG-approval,
> the actual stability of these so-called "works-in-editing"
> is (IMO) less than the process distinction or this term implies.

Just to be clear, the IESG's view has been consistently that
if any changes made during post-approval editing are technically
substantive, they either have to be undone or go through
review (very likely WG review, unless truly trivial).

    Brian