RE: A proposal for URL registration PROCEDURE

IMHO, there needs to be a fairly liberal 'reset' mechanism for the
'clock', too.  There are good reasons for delays.  However, I think it's
important that there IS a clock, and that people are required to make a
good-faith showing of activity regarding the scheme name and
implementation.  IOW: you snooze, you lose.  :-)

Ian King, QA Lead <[email protected]>
Microsoft Information Retrieval                There are three kinds of
people:
Internet Servers Business Unit                 Those who can count, and
those who can't.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Rich Petke [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent:	Thursday, May 08, 1997 1:36 PM
> To:	URL List; Fisher Mark
> Subject:	RE: A proposal for URL registration PROCEDURE
> 
> Regarding Mark Fisher's comments on my proposal -
> 
> > >3) Forward it to a committee for review.  Committee to take no more
> than
> > >   x weeks to review.  Committee returns recommendation to IESG for
> further
> > >   action (return, approve, forward to WG) with-in x weeks.
> > >
> > >4) Forward to a WG for consideration.  (A WG may have to be
> chartered.)
> > 
> > Do we need different "x weeks to review" if a WG needs to be
> chartered?
> > I am unsure as to just how fast this actually occurs (never have
> really
> > kept track in my activities).
> 
> Perhaps poor wording on my part.  My intent was that there was a
> reasonable
> time between the recommendation being returned by the review committee
> and the DECISION to charter a WG or other action.  WG charters can
> take
> time as well as recruiting chairs, etc.  Better wording is indeed
> needed
> here.