Getting Rid of the Cruft: Report from an Experiment in Identifying and Reclassifying Obsolete Standards Documents
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Brian Carpenter) Yes
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) Yes
(Allison Mankin) Yes
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen) No Objection
(Alex Zinin) (was Discuss) No Objection
(David Kessens) Abstain
Comment (2005-12-15 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I am not clear on how this document fits in the new-trk working group charter. I also agree with Russ that I am confused about this document: It is an informational document that describes an experiment ? I also cannot agree with the conclusions of the experiment: Basically, declaring success if many documents are reclassified as Historic. Is this document telling us that the current process actually works and everything is fine ? To me this merely is a success from the point of view of a paperpusher. Yes, we got documents reclassified but did we do any good for the IETF beyond spending a lot of time and resources on this topic ? Does anybody care that we declared documents historic that nobody was using anyways ? Do we have any clue how we can repeat this so that we won't end up with yet another large set of cruft in the future ? This document's status is Informational and I see little harm in publishing it, so I have decided not stand in the way of publication.