Sounds reasonable. Unless there are any strong objections, we can adopt
Adrian's text.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:38 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Ronald Bonica; 'Hannes Tschofenig'; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [wpkops] Adrian Farrel's Block on charter-ietf-wpkops-00-
> 01: (with BLOCK)
>
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:47 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > In my re-draft I have tried to retain some of the background, but to
> > reorganise the text so that it more pithily describes the working
> group.
>
> That is appropriate for a WG charter. It is especially appropriate here
> because the WG is not developing protocols.
>
> > I present it as an offering at your altar, not as a mandatory change.
> > I don't want to get in the way of the formation of this WG, but I
> > would like to use the week remaining before the IESG telechat to try
> > to get a better charter. If the mailing list says "We spent a lot of
> > effort crafting the current text. We like it. It is good" then I am
> likely to back down.
>
> We did not spend much effort crafting the current text, as can be seen
> from the short length of the BoF archives.
>
> I think Adrian's proposal is better than the original because it lets
> people not yet active in the WG know better what the WG is supposed to
> be doing.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> wpkops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
