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

Re: Summary of "working group meeting"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:42:44 +0100
Message-ID: <4239DDB4.6050305@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, ejw@soe.ucsc.edu

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> 
> I know you think that there are issues remaining on Quota as well as no  
> issues remaining on Bind.  I do not agree with you on Bind, and I am  

Lisa, we have a WG process for defining what an open issue is. This has 
been outlined by Joe, and everybody agreed to stick to it. Based on that 
process, there are no issues. If you disagree with this statement, 
please be more specific.

> not sure that there are open issues on Quota worth pursuing.  Brian has  
> done a slow but decent job of responding to the issues you've raised  
> and if he followed your approach, then he would simply declare the rest  
> of them closed.  Are you willing to compromise on any of the issues  

...in which case we'd start a last call, open a Bugzilla section for it, 
and follow our process for dealing with them. Fine with me.

> you've raised on Quota in order to see it completed?  Can you get other  
> people to review Quota and either agree with your open issues or state  
> that there are no blocking issues?

Please do us all a favor and please read what issues exactly I raised 
(see 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0103.html>).

> I agree this working group needs good leadership but it also needs  
> volunteers -- more than just two or three volunteers to do the work of  
> writing and reviewing -- and we need some more compromises.  I  
> apologize again that we did not have an agenda for the WG meeting in  
> Minneapolis, but I will point out again that we got no suggestions for  
> the agenda until the week before the meeting.  Previous meetings which  

Well, in which case I'll have to point out that there was no 
announcement whatsover. Please do not complain about the fact that 
*others* haven't been doing the work that's supposed to be done by the 
chairs.

By the way: there was exactly one agenda proposal, and as far as I can 
tell, it has been ignored by the chairs.

> were better organized still had attendance problems and a poor record  
> of accomplishing any progress. For example, in Washington we had the  
> same issues we have today, the same few people participating.  We could  
> have cancelled the Minneapolis meeting rather than create an agenda,  
> but as for myself, I wanted to give the WG one last chance for parties  
> to get together and communicate and compromise.

I guess we'll continue to disagree here. There was no announcement, no 
agenda, and the meeting was closed after less than 20 minutes although 
there were unanswered questions on the Jabber chat (by Bernard D. and 
myself).

It would be nice if we could now get back to the open issues we have to 
resolve. How about starting with the agenda that was proposed by me in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0293.html>?


Best regards, Julian


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2005 19:43:24 GMT

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