Re: DISCUSSION: archiving of NOMCOM information

[Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>]

>   | err, no thanks. no archives, thank you very much.
> 
> That's OK too, I also see no reason to make archives - just that I
> don't really mind if people decide they want to archive the procedural
> part of the process.

i think it is worthwhile to figure out what problems there are, and whether they're worth solving, before solutions start popping up.

i've yet to see a rationale exposition for "the documentation problem".

simpler is almost always better than "not simpler".

improvements rarely make things better...

but, i'm mostly preaching to choir...


> This was in among a collection of random innocuous changes considered too
> minor to debate individually (others include trivia like adding a definition
> of what is a sitting member, and changing "Spring IETF" to "First IETF" (of
> the calendar year)).

okie-dokie.

/mtr