Subject: [weirds] Moving forward

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:15:12 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Given the rapid convergence I at least am seeing around Andy's most
recent proposal for a charter, it would appear that we are close to
agreement among people on this list.  I'd like to suggest the
following:

    1.  If you have issues with Andy's text, please send specific
    alterations you'd like to see, unless you have a difference in
    principle.  It would be nice to converge on a single text for
    consideration in Paris.  Note that I'm not the chair here, I have
    no power of any kind, and I'm not trying to tell anyone what to
    do.  This is merely a suggestion, and people are free to ignore my
    suggestion, tell me to jump in the lake (well, river, I guess, in
    this case), or whatever.

    2.  Assuming we are close on (1), we won't have much to discuss in
    Paris.  I'd therefore like to suggest that, if there are
    outstanding issues in the drafts _that people think need face to
    face time_, we identify those and add them provisionally to an
    agenda.  Again, I'm not the boss of you, and I'm even less the
    boss of you than I would be if I were a WG chair (which is pretty
    not-boss anyway, I have to say).  This is merely a suggestion for
    how we might best use our time to make progress, which is I
    believe what everyone wants.

Because we have a BoF scheduled, even if we all agree on this list
we'll need to face any disagreements with any text satisfying (1) in
Paris.  Maybe there won't be any.

I think it would be great if we could convert the Paris time we have
reserved from wrangling about administration to wrangling about
protocols!

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:44:33 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:15 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [weirds] Moving forward
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 

The only change I wanted (and I can't remember if I said so now or not) is to re-add the requirements document back into the list of initial documents to be considered.  It's not critical, because the WG could adopt it anyway, but I think it helps to create a more complete picture for the IESG, and it could address this to-http-or-not question up front.
	
>     believe what everyone wants.

I think we should take a few minutes at the Paris BoF to summarize what's different between the charter that was considered in Taipei and Andy's text, for the people that will be in the room again but aren't following this list.  If no serious friction results, then we could switch to talking about the real work rather than the meta-work.

We might want to have a list of real work topics to cover in the time we have just in case we're lucky and the BoF fails to go south.  :-)

-MSK

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:18:14 -0700

Hi Murray,
At 14:44 22-03-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>The only change I wanted (and I can't remember if I said so now or 
>not) is to re-add the requirements document back into the list of 
>initial documents to be considered.  It's not critical, because the 
>WG could adopt it anyway, but I think it helps to create a more 
>complete picture for the IESG, and it could address this 
>to-http-or-not question up front.

Andy mentioned that during the discussion about the 2012-03-20aln.2 
version of the draft charter.  Suggested text for first sentence of 
7th paragraph:

   The Working Group shall determine the general requirements of such a
   service, using draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements as an input document,
   and standardize a single data framework.

Regards,
-sm