On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote: >> We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of >> documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still where documents >> go to die... > > Agreed, but I also don't want to return to that bleak past where we > could never get anything published because it wasn't perfect, and then > the number of recycles got high enough that nobody would review, so > the draft wasn't perfect, and so on.
+very many much lots. I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that our chairs are now getting documents pushed through.... W > The editors will put their heads > together once more on the basis of the most recent comments. > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@anvilwalrusden.com > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
