- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:54:03 +0000
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, public-iri@w3.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Martin J. Dürst wrote: > [Responding one more time here because this is a metadiscussion; > please move the discussion to public-iri@w3.org (the mailing list of > the IETF IRI WG). Please also see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/54 and > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/55 for the two issues > this has resulted in] > > On 2011/02/10 6:38, t.petch wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Martin J. Dürst"<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> >> To: "t.petch"<ietfc@btconnect.com> >> Cc: "Larry Masinter"<masinter@adobe.com>; "Ben Niven-Jenkins" >> <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>;<apps-discuss@ietf.org>;<public-iri@w3.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:32 AM > [...] >> I would expect the WG chairs >> and AD to declare such activity ultra vires (but I might get >> a pleasant surprise:-). > > I'd definitely like to hear from the WG chairs or the AD(s), but maybe > first we have to have some discussion in the WG to see where we are > headed, and to what extent we might potentially jump out of our > charter fence. I think this is sensible. And if the WG comes to rough consensus that some procedure changes are needed, I am sure that one of your friendly ADs will be willing to help you out with rechartering, etc. And of course it is up to the IRI WG chairs to decide if this discussion is appropriate for the IRI WG mailing list.
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 09:55:02 UTC