Subject: Re: Requirements to Extend the Datatracker for WG Chairs and Document Authors

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:53:20 -0500

Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> The tool MUST NOT impose constraints on WG process.  Any questions about 
> whether I should be "allowed" to use a state, or transition from a state 
> to a particular other state, or _not_ use a state, all have the same 
> answer: _Of course_ I should be allowed to do that!  

I'm not sure I agree. My working group has been trying for years to find 
a use for the states of California and Rhode Island, and with the 
possible exceptions of "keeping Nevada dry" and "keeping Connecticut out 
of Nantucket", we haven't found any. So I'd like to suggest that these 
states be excluded, despite Mr. Hutzelman's well-phrased arguments with 
which I otherwise agree completely.

--
Dean

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:30:27 -0400

Dean Willis wrote:
> Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> 
>> The tool MUST NOT impose constraints on WG process.  Any questions 
>> about whether I should be "allowed" to use a state, or transition from 
>> a state to a particular other state, or _not_ use a state, all have 
>> the same answer: _Of course_ I should be allowed to do that!  
> 
> of Nantucket", we haven't found any. 

Funny. I've been thinking the same thing about the state of Texas. :-)

	Paul

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:54:10 -0500

> Funny. I've been thinking the same thing about the state of Texas. :-)

Nonsense. Texas is here to make Arizona look good, and because there  
must be "one in every crowd". Besides, SOMEBODY has to correct the  
textbooks you people are using for your kids...

--
Dean