Review the spec...

From: Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Date: Mon, Feb 14 2000

  • Next message: Keith Moore: "IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs"

    From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
    To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
    Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:27:39 -0800
    Message-ID: <NDBBIKLAGLCOPGKGADOJAEAMCOAA.ejw@ics.uci.edu>
    Subject: Review the spec...
    
    Well, it seems to me that, even though we're not meeting this week, those of
    us who were going to the meeting committed to spend 2 days reading through
    the spec. and discussing our comments.  Since that time is presumably still
    free, I recommend we all do the spec. readthrough we were going to do
    anyway, and just email our comments to the list.  I'll leave it up to you
    whether you want to send them in one big email, or one issue at a time.
    
    Once we do this, I guarantee we will make significant progress this week,
    even without the meeting.  The progress we make on the protocol really is
    directly related to the amount of time we spend working on it. So, not
    holding the meeting this week is a bummer, but it would be far worse if we
    didn't hold the meeting AND that time got captured working on something
    else.  So, go lock yourself into your office, take the phone off the hook,
    and read the protocol spec. at
    http://www.webdav.org/deltav/protocol/draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-03.txt
    
    I'm going to aim for getting my comments out by the end of the day
    Wednesday -- hope you all can do the same (or faster!).  And, of course,
    even if you were not planning on attending the meeting, you should also feel
    encouraged (or dare I say, obligated) to also send in your review comments.
    
    With all of us pushing, this spec. will be done in a jiffy.  If we all wait
    for someone else to do the work, it'll take longer, and we'll just get
    frustrated.  Though the choice to hold this meeting is out of our hands,
    what is still very much in our control is the rate of progress we make on
    the protocol specification.
    
    - Jim