Steve,
I have much sympathy with your position. During the London meeting I expressed reservations (not to say more) about this idea.
I have a major problem with the wording below:
"Not all of these items may become standards track RFCs. Some may become INFORMATIONAL or EXPERIMENTAL RFCs."
It implicity means that the document will either become a STANDARD, an INFORMATIONAL or an EXPERIMENTAL RFCs, while the logo type document could never turn out into an RFC at all, because several member of the WG have expressed reservations.
ISO has the concept of a "study period" where ideas can be debated before a NWI is placed on the menu. We don't have officially this equivalent. However, in that case, it would be wise to adopt a similar approach: it seems too early to include the logo type proposal on the charter, at least using the current wording mentionned above.
However, it also seems difficult to refuse any discussion on that topic, even if, for some of us, it will be a waste of our time to argue on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal.
So I propose the following compromise: to allow for the discussion on that topic on the mailing list, without for the time being any commitment from the WG that the proposal will ever become a STANDARD, an INFORMATIONAL or an EXPERIMENTAL RFC.
Denis