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

Re: WG Last call for BIND

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:45:10 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFD7569480.7C3DDB5F-ON85256F87.00455603-85256F87.00460CD0@us.ibm.com>
I believe Joe was just responding to my question about the general
process of achieving rough consensus, and not speaking primarily about
the BIND specification.   In particular, during the design phase of
a new specification, face-to-face communication is often required to
iron out different points of view.  During the "review" phase, I've 
found that email is often sufficient (and often preferable, because
it widens the discussion to a larger group, since often it is only the
"designers" whose companies are willing to fund travel).


Julian wrote on 01/12/2005 03:42:19 AM:

> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>  > ...
> > I'll suggest again that those who want these drafts to continue to 
> > forward progress would benefit from coming to an IETF meeting and 
> > some good old-fashioned politics.  Meet people.  Make friends. Explain 

> > your point of view.  Relationships, trust, and respect can drive a 
> > towards consensus.
> > ...
> I find this comment puzzling. BIND has passed already one WG last call a 

> few years ago, has been on the WG's agenda almost since day one (as part 

> of "advanced collections"), and has been the top priority in the WebDAV 
> WG's charter for quite some time. Does it really need additional 
> political lobbying at this point?
> After all, there is no requirement whatsoever that WGs indeed meet at 
> each IETF (or at all, for that matter). If the WG chairs want to promote 

> a meeting, it would be helpful if there'd be some more advance planning 
> than in the past, so that people would have some idea about what the 
> goals are (just re-stating the status quo isn't that helpful).
> As far as I can tell, the current contents of BIND indeed represents 
> rough consensus (in the semantics the WG wanted to achieve) *and* 
> running code (interoperable code being *deployed*, not only in 
> development), so it's really really time that it get's out of ID state 
> (even if this means publishing as "Experimental" if that is needed to 
> overcome the opposition of a few who, for reasons unclear to me, seem to 

> prefer blocking the progress).
> Best regards, Julian
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 12:45:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:33 UTC