On Tue 01/Apr/2025 16:50:44 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:48 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
[...]
And what I said was:
It's up to you to organize yourselves and find the energy to complete any
work you want to get done by that deadline. Any document that has not
gotten through the IESG will die with the working group, which includes the
base document if it suffers neglect in the interim. And there is no
guarantee that anyone on the next IESG will be willing to sponsor it
afterwards.
That is what I called /abrupt/.
...and here we are.
I'm not clear how to measure a WG's energy, especially after closing it.
However, let me ask if, in case we can score a venue to terminate the work
properly, will we then be able to talk about my fix-forwarding draft?
That's up to the Area Directors. If it were up to me, and reopening the WG
is the call, I would be setting an extremely tight charter to resolve only
the reporting question, and probably a very short deadline. Any other work
would be out of scope.
It seems like a "no". Yet, the draft is in the initial charter (track 1) and I
have not heard any refusal on the merits, only on the timing.
Also, if the consensus is option 2 or 3, I would argue we don't need a
venue just to detach the documents.
I know we may never see it, but I would bet it would take more discussion to
change the approved documents for 2 or 3 than to accept the current draft.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org
