W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Working group moving forward?

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:15:54 -0700
Message-Id: <777370c9e0d24751a23e8b36b3792194@osafoundation.org>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Hi Julian,

I've been completely out of touch on vacation since the last lull in 
conversation on this list.  I'm still catching up.  Joe seems offline 
today and I don't know what his status is -- likely travelling.

Lisa

On May 9, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Jim Whitehead wrote six weeks ago:
>
>> Joe,
>> Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the WebDAV WG, and its future
>> direction. Thank you as well for your contributions to this working 
>> group as
>> its Co-Chair. I know well that this is a time consuming and often 
>> thankless
>> task.
>> But (and you knew a "but" was coming :-) I do disagree with you on 
>> several
>> points.
>>> My take on what I've seen in the last several months of the WebDAV 
>>> working group is that if there was to be a BOF session today, I 
>>> don't see any way that a working group would get approved.
>> Irrelevant. In 1996 there was a clear and present need for an 
>> interoperable
>> web authoring standard. At that time, the WebDAV BOF had a standing 
>> room
>> crowd. Of course there would be fewer people today, just as it would 
>> be hard
>> to have a broadly attended FTP BOF, or Telnet BOF. We're not in that 
>> phase
>> of development. We're in completion mode, not ramp up mode. It's never
>> exciting to dot the final "i" and cross the final "t".
>>> As far as where we are now, some of the current drafts might make 
>>> much better progress as individual submissions.
>> This is very unclear. The progress of individual submissions in the 
>> RFC
>> editor's queue, once they have received IESG approval, is glacial. 
>> They
>> never turn into RFCs. Working group documents fare much better in 
>> terms of
>> responsiveness.
>>> Keep in mind that in the current process the WG chair has to shepard 
>>> WG drafts through.  As much as editors may not like this, it means 
>>> that you have to get at least one WG chair fired
>>> up enough about your draft to take on this responsibility.
>> A Chair assumes certain duties when they take on the position of 
>> Chair. I do not see any process RFC that states that document authors 
>> are required
>> to generate enthusiasm in their Chairs.
>>> My guess for BIND is that either Ted or Scott would want 
>>> clarification on a couple of the interoperability questions that 
>>> Lisa has raised, regardless of whether the answer can be inferred by 
>>> a fully-informed reader.
>> I agree, and applaud that you, as Chair, are helping to focus the 
>> discussion
>> of the working group on productive, tangible work items.
>>
>>> Frankly, I don't think the working group process is adding much in 
>>> the way of value for the drafts we are working on, compared with 
>>> other WGs I've participated in.  As such, it may be needless 
>>> bureaucracy, and we ought to think about decommissioning it.
>> I disagree. This working group has had a good track record over the 
>> past few
>> years of shipping specifications to RFC status (3648 in 12/2003, 3744 
>> in
>> 5/2004). These specifications have had multiple implementations, and 
>> are in
>> shipping code that meet thousand's of people's needs on a daily basis.
>> The issues raised in the recent last calls have been subtle, and 
>> resolving
>> them has significantly enhanced the quality and value of the final
>> specifications. IMO, this is evidence of a working group doing what 
>> it's
>> supposed to do: providing careful, informed review, and producing top
>> quality specifications.
>> I think the WebDAV Working Group can very usefully serve two more 
>> purposes,
>> neither of which needs to take much time.
>> 1) Complete BIND.
>> 2) Complete Quota.
>> Both are very close to completion. Once these two are done, then it 
>> seems
>> reasonable to disband WebDAV WG. Given how close these two documents 
>> are to
>> being done, it would be a waste of all of the effort that has gone 
>> into them
>> to date to stop their development as WG items now.
>> - Jim
>
> I'd really appreciate if the working group chairs would follow up. We 
> need to have this dicussion.
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 22:16:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:08 GMT