On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:35:56AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the principals (i.e. Me, Nat, or
> > Larry, or our replacements) can mark a PDD as developing, standard, or
> > superceded.
>
> This doesn't sound right.
>
> All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Status: Developing' by default.
> Since statuses like 'Standard', 'Rejected', etc. have Real Meaning (tm),
> there should be some review in place (by a WGC, principal, etc.). Statuses
> like 'Withdrawn' and 'Superceded' should be accepted from PDD authors/teams.
They don't need to start with "Developing" if they start with status
"Experimental" or "Proposed"
> This is a community process. I'm uncomfortable leaving such decisions
> to such a small number of people. How about nominating/electing a
If PDDs start as "Proposed" without needing any approval does this remove
the problem of a small group having a stranglehold?
Nicholas Clark
