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

Re: Working group moving forward?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:56:30 +0200
Message-ID: <4288987E.9080309@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Joe Hildebrand <JHildebrand@jabber.com>

Lisa Dusseault wrote six days ago:
> 
> 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

Lisa,

I fully understand that WG chairs do voluntary work, and that they can't 
always dedicate as much time they'd like to spend for WH activities; be 
it because of travel, vacation or other job-related priorities.

On the other hand, this discussion is essential for how this WG is 
supposed to operate in the future, if at all. Therefore I don't think 
it's not too much to ask the WG chairs to paticipate in this discussion.

At some point, one reasonable and likely interpretation of a WG chair's 
silence on that matter seems to be that (s)he doesn't care or even 
doesn't read the list anymore.

In that case it seems that the chair should either step down, letting 
others try to help the WG to achieve it's chartered goals, or 
alternatively, follow up with the IETF with the proposal to shut down 
(or re-charter) the WG.

At this point, the WG has three chartered deliverables:

BIND: this specification has passed *two* working group last calls, and 
at this point it's unclear to me why it hasn't been submitted to the 
IESG for publication.

REDIRECT: this spec has passed one WG last call a few years ago, and 
since then all open issues have been resolved, and at least one 
implementation exists. This spec is clearly ready for another WG last 
call or publication. If the chairs feel that it shouldn't be published 
at "Proposed" level, please clearly state this, in which case we can 
either discuss publication as "Experimental", or I'll consider a private 
submission.

RFC2518bis: no activity for almost one year, and the last draft has expired.

There's another WG deliverable, QUOTA, which isn't on the charter but 
seems to be ready for LC as well.

So by all means please follow up on both the meta issue (how the WG 
should proceed), and on the three documents that are basically done 
(BIND, REDIRECT, QUOTA). My preference would be to submit BIND for 
publication, and to WG-last-call the other two (probably QUOTA first 
because of it's simplicity). Once these are in the publication queue, 
the WG can focus on progressing RFC2518 to Draft Standard. How to do 
that best will be another interesting discussion.


Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 16 May 2005 12:59:11 GMT

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