Ok, folks, got the message. Block has been cleared.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/9/2014 10:31 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> This seems like a reasonable compromise with the overall DMARC effort. > >> However, this charter seems to provide pretty huge scope. Can it be cut > >> up into a few chunks? It already specifies phases; perhaps we could > >> charter only the first phase now? What's the compelling reason to > >> charter all this work in one fell swoop? > > > > We have energy to do it, and we know what we want to get done. > > > > What's the value in breaking it up? > > > Right. > > > 1. There is a limited agreement on the fine-grained details of work to > do initially, although there's a better sense of that than there was the > last time we tried to charter. That said, there is a certain amount of > 'get started and figure out the fine-grained tasks as we progress.' > This works against a highly constrained charter. > > 2. The tasks that /are/ in the charter are complementary. I, too, do > not see the benefit of gating on a 'first' set of tasks. If we had a > sense of how the 'early' work might alter the later work, then a > re-chartering effort might make sense. Absent that, it's merely > imposing significant additional administrative overhead, but satisfying > no apparent need. > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
