> > But, my strongest opinion is that whatever we do we need to be clear
> > and explicit---which is tough because all the words are overloaded.
> 
> network protocols need to be clear and explicit.  here, we should
> think more in the terms of the British admiralty (say) giving
> instructions to an 18 century captain they wouldn't see for 3 years
> (in our case, to multitudes of PCs over some small number of years).
> there needs to be enough flexibility for different PCs to adapt to the
> needs of their moment.

See... I am complaining about using poor phrasing and cannot seem myself
to express what I am trying to say.  You guys need to be clear---I'll
mumble in the corner.  :)

I agree with all of your words above.  This is just guidance to PCs.

But, you noted that we're talking about "workshop papers", Vern used the
term "short papers".  How do we treat an IMC 6-pager?  It's short, but
it's from a conference.  What to do?  How about a 10 page paper from the
foobar workshop?  It's getting long-ish, but it's from a workshop.
These words ("conference", "workshop", "tech report", etc.) are so
overloaded that it seems to me we ought to just say what we mean (e.g.,
"a refereed paper with <= 6 pages" or whatever).

allman