Thanks for your efforts on this; I see authors have replied to specific
I just want to clarify what amounts to a process point:
> On Sep 18, 2016, at 4:21 PM, avri doria <a...@acm.org> wrote:
> On 12-Sep-16 16:19, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> It seems unlikely that they can be combined, so we simply have to ask
>> the WG to choose.
> I do not understand this point. Having now read both IDs, I see
> relevant points for the ongoing discussion in both of them. I see them
> as complementary where both contribute to defining the problem in a
> comprehensive way.
As a personal opinion, I agree with you.
> I think it would make sense to ask the authors to combine their efforts,
> that being a first step in finding consensus on how to proceed -
> otherwise the back and forth continues once a winner is picked. Perhaps
> enlist the help of one of the neutral knowledgeable people in the group
> to bring the two groups of authors together in a base draft that
> discusses the issues in language both groups can live with with a strict
> focus on problems and their explanation. I may be misreading the 2 IDs,
> but I do not think there should be that many sticking points once there
> is a decision to work it out.
The authors are always free to do that.
In the meantime, however, in the interests of getting some kind of movement,
the chairs are reminded that:
1. We do need some basis for moving forward, and the roadmap we set out
last year(!) does call for adoption of a problem statement as a next step.
2. Once we have a WG document adopted, it becomes easier, from a
process perspective, for any participant in the WG to ask for the edits they
want, since we’re supposed to be progressing towards a consensus document. In a
real sense the question at hand is a very practical one: “Which of these
documents do you think needs less work?"
DNSOP mailing list