Subject: [weirds] Please speak up if you *need* the "escape clause" in the charter (Was: Post-BoF charter)

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:34:00 -0500

Folks,

As far as I can tell, we have only heard from one person who liked the 
first version of the charter (where work on names was clearly called out 
as *not* being a first deliverable) and didn't like the charter 
discussed at the BoF (where names was clearly called out as being a 
primary work item).

If you were one of the people who wanted the "escape clause" added to 
the charter to make it clear that names could be abandoned if it was not 
making progress, please speak up and say whether the new escape clause 
is sufficient.

If you liked the charter without the escape clause, only speak up if you 
object to the escape clause as written.

Again, saying, "I *still* like the charter" is *not* helping us figure 
out whether we have answered all objections.

Objections to the current text: Please.
Withdrawal of earlier objections because the Post-BoF text fixed it: Please.
"Still works for me": Please don't.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 5 Apr 2012 19:16:35 -0000

>making progress, please speak up and say whether the new escape clause 

I'm probably the most vocal escapist.  If I were writing the charter,
I would use different words, but given the stated intention of both
the chairs and the AD not to let the work get stalled if one side
can't keep up with the other, I don't see any reason for further
charter futzing.

So, yes, it's sufficient.

R's,
John

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:51:52 +0200

> making progress, please speak up and say whether the new escape clause 
{catching up}

while I usually appreciate sarcasm, I do not think the wording in

    Should the Working Group reach a point where it determines that the problem
    of producing a grand unified specification for both numbers and names
    appears to be intractable, it will be permitted to divide the problem
    into separate tasks and amend its milestones accordingly.

is really helpful.  Should the WG decide it is stalled, it is allowed
to un-stall.  Now, what?   We have already seeen other discussions on this
list that emphasize that names and number "spaces" are different and
will increase the complexity of a single approach.  So, I do not see the
reservations against a combined approach addressed, but on the other hand
the overwhelming enthusiasm to solve the "whois problem" this time has
made this ship sail.  Let's hope there's no need to rearrange the deck
chairs again.  That said, I do not support this version, but I'll also
cease objections.

I do have reservations about the two-milestones-only, but there's a place
upthread to address that.

-Peter, waiting for the Cassandra T-shirt