Hi John,
John C Klensin wrote:
Tony,
I'd rather make this reappraisal after we see the composition of
the IESG that should be seated in Prague. It seems to me that
the key question is whether the IESG is going to be willing to
process the documents as originally intended and that might give
us a clue. Or not, but certainly we will not have less
information.
In theory, we should have that information in well under a
month. If we do not, I think I'd suggest going ahead and asking
for a meeting slot on the theory that meetings are much more
easily cancelled (should that be necessary) than scheduled.
I am sorry for not picking up this thread earlier, but let me say I was
distracted by activities in a couple of my other WGs.
But anyway, now that the new IESG membership is known, I think the poll
needs to be restarted.
I certainly wouldn't object to modifying the charter to include
your item C.
That part should be no problems.
Finding out whether the IESG would be willing to
approve a revised charter that included them but also included
the preapproval model for documents that might go from
Draft->Full would be another way to get some information.
I can ask IESG about keeping the old charter, but my personal opinion is
that the process documented in the charter is more work for both the WG
and for IESG.
john
--On Thursday, January 13, 2011 13:53 -0500 Tony Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:
Folks, the time has come to start deciding what to do with the
YAM working group. I've been discussing this with my co-chair
and our AD, and I see several ways forward:
1) stay on hold -- keep the group in hiatus for another X
months
a) we would need to decide on what X is
2) restart work as originally chartered. This means going
back and
picking up where we left off on 5321bis, 5322bis and
4409bis.
3) shut down
4) recharter (see below)
There are several ways we could recharter.
A) We could eliminate or modify the "process experiment"
we've been
using (where we publish an I-D that indicates what needs to
change, get IESG approval, and *then* proceed with revising
the
RFC).
B) We could review the documents that were in the
original YAM
charter. For any that we feel need to be revved no matter what
(for example, 3798 MDN (one of my documents) is in this list),
we can proceed with revising them.
C) We start taking a look at the Proposed Standard
mail-related
standards and see what they need to moved forward to the next
status.
D) Do something else.
E) Any combination of the above.
Please provide your input. We have exactly one month to come
to a consensus, after which it will be too late to schedule a
meeting in Prague (should we decide we need one).
Tony Hansen
YAM co-chair
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
