At 8:58 PM -0400 7/16/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
I hesitate to put a number on it, but our experience included a ghastly amount of debate on field names. If I were setting up a WG for something like Media RSS, I would probably rule debate on field names out of order (realizing that people have to pick something to propose a *new* feature), and leave field names up to the editors until WG last call.
We don't need a new WG: it could possibly be done in this WG if there is interest in updating the charter and willingness from Scott Hollenbeck.
<co-chair-hat position='on'>I would only entertain a charter extension if we had a volunteer to be the document author, and expressed interest from developers. This will certainly be contentious.</co-chair-hat>
Alternatively, someone can write an individual Internet Draft that is just discussed on this list, with no rules about how changes are made to the draft. This is definitely lighter-weight, but much more likely to bring bad feelings and lack of consensus unless the draft authors are really good at listening. Still, it is easy to do.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
