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

Summary of "working group meeting", was: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:52:10 +0100
Message-ID: <42374AFA.1040108@gmx.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Joe Hildebrand <JHildebrand@jabber.com>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> Yes, we always get a Jabber scribe and that scribe (or a helper) will 
> tell the room when people in the Jabber chat have important stuff to 
> say.  It *is* difficult, however.  (It's certainly not the easiest way 
> to overcome differences and resolve difficult problems.  For that, I 
> highly recommend some face to face time when possible.)

OK,

almost a week has passed since the meeting, and no minutes have been 
posted (will there be any????).  The Jabber log is available from 
<http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/webdav@ietf.xmpp.org/2005-03-09.html> but 
that's not a replacement.

I listened to the audio cast (archived at 
<http://limestone.uoregon.edu/ftp/pub/videolab/video/ietf62/ietf62-ch6-wed-am.mp3>, 
discussion starts at around 22min), and here's *my* summary:

- Only few people attended (13 physically, a few on the text chat) - I 
don't find that surprising at all, given the fact that it wasn't 
announced in time, and no agenda was posted. In particular, with the 
exception of Lisa Dusseault, none of the authors of the current working 
group documents were present.

- The meeting ended after less than 20 minutes (instead of the 2,5 hours 
that were scheduled) and basically no technical questions were 
discussed. Considering the amount of time and money one would have spent 
in order to physically attend the meeting, I'll just note that I'm happy 
that I stayed at home.

At this point, I think it's up to the working group chairs to state how 
they want to continue with this WG (or, if they don't indend to, that as 
well). What should be obvious is that we need to change a lot of things 
if we want to fulfill what's been outlined in the charter.

Note that we don't need a WG to do useful work; but having a WG that is 
incapable of making any decisions (or shipping documents that are ready) 
means that the active contributors are basically wasting their time 
fighting process barriers instead if doing meaningful technical work.


Best regards and feedback appreciated,

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 20:52:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT