At 10:48 PM -0500 2/2/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 9:57 PM -0500 2/2/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
First, let's differentiate "critical bug" from "missing feature".
Let's not. Let's differentiate "missing feature" from "critical missing feature".
Let's not. :-) Looking over the archives, there are certainly pockets of people in the WG who consider particular features that the WG has failed to reach consensus on as critical. It could be critical to their business model, to their picture of what blogging is, to their picture of what is needed to gain critical mass over RSS 2.0, to their picture of what is needed for extensibility, to their picture of what is needed to work with other parts of the XML alphabet soup, and so on.
We do not have a way of defining "critical missing feature", and a group as diverse as this would be unable to come to consensus on such a definition in under a year, if then. This group would probably do what most IETF groups fighting with the same issue would do, namely cheat and make the "requirements" match the current document and piss everybody off in the process.
None of the "organization" Paces could easily be added to the core.
Agree. But that's why there is one more round of consensus-gathering: to see if WG wants to do it, even if it isn't easy.
Our charter: --------------------------------------------------------- Goals and Milestones: Mar 05 Request Last Call for Atom feed format Mar 05 Request Last Call for Atom editing protocol ---------------------------------------------------------
These two deadlines seem to be the ones at hand. I don't know whether "Mar 05" means March 1 or March 31, but let's say it means March 1. Clearly, the format is on track for that deadline, while the protocol is not.
Maybe.
Since the chairs' proposed deadline for new Paces is February 7, please outline the process by which new text will make it in the draft between that date and March 1-31.
Format draft:
Feb. 7: All Paces must be complete
Feb. 7: Begin formally discussing Paces so we can assess consensus
Feb. 14: Finish discussion on Paces, assess consensus, ask editors to issue another draft
Feb. 21ish: Get new draft
Feb. 21ish: Start intensive editorial review
March 1ish: Get another round of the draft including results of editorial review.
March 1ish: Pass this to our AD in preparation for IETF Last Call
Protocol draft:
Feb 14ish: Renew discussion of outstanding technical and editorial issues in the protocol
March 15ish: Try to close out draft
March 31ish: Pass this to our AD in preparation for IETF Last Call
All of these depend on what comes out of the WG process. Finding a critical bug in either spec could cause a delay because we need to agree on a fix and get another round of the draft. That's just fine.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
