W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: Comments on current version of the WEBDAV spec

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:18:22 -0800
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F4850256668D@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, Andre van der Hoek <andre@bigtime.cs.colorado.edu>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Andre posted his points.
I responded and explained why I felt his proposals should not be
implemented.
No one came forward to refute my explanation or defend Andre's
assertions.
As pointed out yourself, at this point the matter is closed.

Given that Andre's proposals were basically dead I wanted to give him
another mechanism to perhaps sway the group. The only option I saw left
for him was to write a full spec which the group could then review and
decide if perhaps it had not fully understood his proposal. It was
either that or Andre just throwing in the towel.

	Yaron

PS I am not the editor, Del Jensen is.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Dan Connolly [SMTP:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent:	Friday, March 14, 1997 3:47 PM
> To:	Andre van der Hoek
> Cc:	Yaron Goland; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: Comments on current version of the WEBDAV spec
> 
> Andre van der Hoek wrote:
> > > I should also clarify that the current spec has absolutely no
> special
> > > status. Any spec submitted to the group will be given equal
> weight. The
> > > only power the current spec has is that it has proven useful in
> > > clarifying issues and helping the group to build consensus.
> > 
> > I do not understand.  I thought the process was not to have every
> member of
> > the group submit a spec, but to jointly work towards a consensus as
> you said.
> > Part of that is discussing the existing spec, which I am trying to
> do.  I do
> > absolutely not have any intent to write a rival spec.  There are
> many things
> > good about the existing spec, it does not make sense to propose a
> new one.
> > Rather, I would like to improve on the existing one, which is all
> that I am
> > trying to do.  Am I misunderstanding the process now?
> 
> Not at all. To put it more strongly: the editor of an IETF
> document is at the service of the working group. If a
> comment is raised, it's the duty of the editor to write
> it down or explain why not. If the explanation isn't satisfactory,
> discussion continues, moderated by the chair.
> 
> Telling people to "go write your own" is not cool, per IETF
> process[1] and culture.
> 
> [1] ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2026.txt
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C Architecture Domain Lead
> <connolly@w3.org> +1 512 310-2971
> http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> PGP:EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21
Received on Friday, 14 March 1997 20:18:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT