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

Re: Working group moving forward?

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 17:51:16 -0700
Message-Id: <762bd5814e73825182d3f3631dd5f816@osafoundation.org>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Joe Hildebrand <JHildebrand@jabber.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Hi Julian,

Joe and I are discussing these issues with Ted now that we're all back 
from various trips and absences.


On May 16, 2005, at 5:56 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 17 May 2005 00:51:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:34 UTC