No explaination other than asking for deletion? -James Seng
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Seng/Personal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [idn] Update Charter revision 2 > James, > > My goal isn't to delay anything, here. I plan to exercise the LC periods > responsibly, but I don't consider that "delay" as its absence is "haste". > > Here is a specific recommendation. > > Delete every one of your (caveat, someone else could have written them, etc.) > deltas on the description section. > > Delete every one of your (caveat, see above) deltas on the goals section. > > This includes leaving the informational memo(s) as part of what this WG is > committed to delivering to the IETF. > > What you do with the requirements document is up to you. I suggest you ask > for someone who actually cares and is careful to take over editing of it. > If you do that, then add it to the set of informational memo(s) this WG has > a stake in reporting out. > > That is the easy part. The harder part is milestones. > > There is (ideally) a set of standards track memos, and a set of informational > track memos. I've given this a lot more thought than the space after the "." > usually conveys. Your drafts and your WG with its "rough consensus" (not mine, > thanks) ought to reach LC between the 1st and 2nd meetings of next year. The > drafts you don't have even started, input methods, namepreps, zonefile, and > the forgotten writing order, and other bits that surface as all the big items > are "solved" should take you and your WG out through the end of the year, and > a really careful basic evaluation memo (revision of Paul's) not quite that > long. > > Eric
