Re: #1416

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> I would be happy to hear arguments that the current
> draft is worse than the RFC it would replace.

*sigh* ... not _again_.

> If there is consensus around that point
> then I'd retract my promise to process
> the document by the end of the month.

I thought consensus was required to _publish_ an RFC, not
to keep a half-baked document from being advanced to RFC
status more or less by accident or general lack of interest.

Let the mailing-list archives and the drafts serve
as a memorial of what happens when you don't keep
idiots with a political agenda out of a technical WG.

> However, I'd still close the WG as there
> has been no progress for so long.

About time.

| Goals and Milestones:
|
| Apr 97      Identify areas where updates required and write
|             draft standards for inclusion in the main document.
|
| May 97      Produce a revised internet-draft
|             of the Usenet Article Standard.
|
| May-Sep 97  Produce further drafts as needed.
|
| Oct 97      Submit the revised Usenet Article Standard
|             to the IESG for Proposed Standard status

<[email protected]>