Re: [Fwd: WG Action: Application Exchange WG (apex) to conclude]

[Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>]

Thomas writes:
> Can be done only after there are no WG documents
> anymore. Historically, this was not "policy" in the "IESG wants it
> this way" sense, it was also de facto policy because Steve said the
> database can't be made to do it differently (without jumping through
> nasty hoops).
>
> Actually, now I remember in the long-forgotten past (scott?) reminding
> us that even during 48 hours, questions sometimes come up, so having
> the WG still exist provides a way of contacting people and/or getting
> the WG involved if necessary.
If we can change this policy, I think we should.   Ned and I were
talking today about this, and he's convinced me that it contributes
to a sense that the IESG takes too long to do anything.  Having a
doc in REF hold keeps the WG on the books and can make it look like even
reasonably fast-paced work was slow.  I also think that at times keeping
one around through this creates an attractive nuisance for folks
who want to revisit issues the working group has passed or which
are not in the group's charter.  A good chair can squelch that, but
why waste a good chair's time on it?

I agree that the mailing list should stay open for questions and further
discussion in most cases, but the content of the output of the working
group should be a done deal when it goes to the RFC Editor.  When
it has no more content to output to the RFC Editor thus seems like
a fine time to me to shake their hands, pat them on the back, and
close down the group.

My small-denomination currency,
							Ted