Subject: Closing the Atompub Working Group

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:34:11 -0400

Greetings again. As y'all may have noticed, the Atompub WG finally 
completed our milestones. In the IETF, this normally has one of two 
consequences:

- The WG shuts down, with the mailing list remaining open

- A new charter is agreed to, and the WG continues

Tim and I feel that the former is appropriate, but it is also 
appropriate to ask if people have suggestions for the latter. If the 
WG does recharter, Tim and I will step down, and Lisa will find one 
or two new leaders for the WG.

Comments?

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:03:24 -0700

I'd be fine with either. There definitely might be some sense in
chartering an Atom Extensions WG that can look at various things like
the Features draft.

I do, however, believe that keeping at least one of the mailing lists
active would be an extremely good idea so that those of us who are
working on extensions can continue to engage the community.

- James

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> appropriate to ask if people have suggestions for the latter. If the WG
> does recharter, Tim and I will step down, and Lisa will find one or two
> new leaders for the WG.
> 
> Comments?
> 
>

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:43:41 +1000

Shut it down, let it simmer for a good few years; it can always be  
reopened later.

On 13/10/2007, at 12:34 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> appropriate to ask if people have suggestions for the latter. If  
> the WG does recharter, Tim and I will step down, and Lisa will find  
> one or two new leaders for the WG.
>
> Comments?
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 04:26:09 +0200

* James M Snell <[email-masked]> [2007-10-12 17:15]:
> I do, however, believe that keeping at least one of the mailing
> lists active would be an extremely good idea

Per Paul’s message that was going to be the case anyhow.

> There definitely might be some sense in chartering an Atom
> Extensions WG that can look at various things like the Features
> draft.

Instituting such a WG would mean a concerted effort to produce a
particular spec. At the time being, most extensions are
interesting to few people only, and even for those with broader
appeal, the interested folks are divided along too many lines,
not to mention that implementation experience is generally
limited as yet.

So it seems to me that setting up an Atom Extensions WG would be
premature at this time. Any work on extensions could be conducted
via the mailing list, which will remain around after all, and
invidual submissions.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:59:10 -0700

> Per Paul’s message that was going to be the case anyhow.

Doh! Missed that completely!

> via the mailing list, which will remain around after all, and

Yep, I can live with that.

- James

---

From: Bill de hOra <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:05:15 +0100

> does recharter, Tim and I will step down, and Lisa will find one or two 

You're not actually going to let us walk are you? Isn't there some kind 
of IETF parole board hearing we have to do first before getting out of here?

;)

cheers
Bill