Subject: The probably-last gang of issues

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:00:23 -0800

Greetings again. Sam's recent work queue rotation marks what we 
consider to be the likely final rotation before we are finished with 
the Atom format draft. That is, the goal is that, once we accept or 
close all of the items from the rotation, the format document editors 
will have a complete picture of what the WG wants in the Atom format 
spec.

(For those of you new to this process, the full list of "currently 
under discussion" is at 
<http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList>.)

This ties in nicely with our goal of turning the format spec in for 
IETF Last Call before March. Of course, changes can (and probably 
will) be made based on the input to the WG from the IETF Last call. 
Those changes can come from the IETF community as a whole or from the 
WG as we stare one more time at the document (and as the implementers 
write code to it). However, there is a goal of not needing to revise 
the document after IETF Last Call; that is, we don't send the 
document to the IETF for review if we know that there are topics on 
which there is WG consensus that is not reflected in the document.

So, please take a look at all of the Paces listed as "currently under 
discussion" and comment freely. We're getting close to being 
finished, which is of course the over-arching goal.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:45:27 +0000

2 questions:

1. Is there a deadline for new feature proposals? Has it passed? 
There's one I want to make that depends on whether or not one in the 
current round is accepted.

2. The Pace process doesn't encourage proposing minor (editorial, 
style, etc) changes. It also seems to have encouraged proposals that 
are good in principle but poorly worded to be incorporated. Will there 
be a period of time for nitpicking and copyediting?

Graham

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:08:06 -0800

>1. Is there a deadline for new feature proposals? Has it passed?

It has passed. We have been talking about finishing for quite a 
while, and our March milestone is coming up quickly.

>  There's one I want to make that depends on whether or not one in 
>the current round is accepted.

You are welcome to propose changes to current Paces if you feel that 
such a change will help gain consensus in the WG.

>style, etc) changes.

Fully agree.

>  It also seems to have encouraged proposals that are good in 
>principle but poorly worded to be incorporated.

Hopefully disagree, but I assume you have examples that I might go 
"oh, yeah, good point" to.

>  Will there be a period of time for nitpicking and copyediting?

Absolutely. You can start now with the current draft, and we'll 
certainly have a bit of time after the next draft before we go to the 
IETF. After that latter round, we'll make a very fuzzy judgement call 
on whether to push the draft to the IETF anyhow or do another round 
with the editorial changes.

Some of this will depend on a complete externality, namely the closed 
window for accepting Internet Drafts that happens before each IETF 
meeting. The cutoff is Monday, February 21st at 9:00 AM ET, and the 
window doesn't open again until Monday, March 7th. But we'll deal 
with that when we get closer to those deadlines, and by talking to 
Scott Hollenbeck, our illustrious AD.

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:19:31 +0000

On 25 Jan 2005, at 2:08 am, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> It has passed. We have been talking about finishing for quite a while, 
> and our March milestone is coming up quickly.

That sounds like you making excuses for not having advertised the 
deadline in advance.

> "oh, yeah, good point" to.

It's not so much examples, but I can't think of any times when a Pace 
has been rejected because of mediocre language. Thus if the principal 
is sound the Pace is accepted regardless.

(though I will be listing examples willy and indeed nilly once the next 
draft is published)

Graham

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:28:45 -0800

> current round is accepted.

This being an IETF WG, you can always post a comment to a draft.  If 
rough consensus occurs, in it goes.  The current flurry is about 
achieving closure on a bunch of known issues, and about our belief that 
the Atom data format is getting nicely cooked; but the door isn't 
closed until the IESG says "done".

> be a period of time for nitpicking and copyediting?

I think it's be just fine to have editorial and style and language 
debates right here on the WG any old time.  It might be nice to put 
[Editorial] or some such in the subject line.  -Tim

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:31:50 -0800

At 2:19 AM +0000 1/25/05, Graham wrote:
>(though I will be listing examples willy and indeed nilly once the 
>next draft is published)

Feel free to start listing them now. Waiting is OK too, but wording 
fixes suggested now will make the last steps even easier.

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:56:45 -0500

>> 2. The Pace process doesn't encourage proposing minor (editorial, 

-05 is almost done right now. All valid -04 documents are valid -05 
documents. Many editorial suggestions have been incorporated. I suspect 
Graham will prefer it.

We can pick up the pace to incorporate wording and nitpick changes.

Robert Sayre