On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:28 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It's up to you to organize yourselves and find the energy to > complete any > > work you want to get done by that deadline. Any document that has > not > > gotten through the IESG will die with the working group, which > includes the > > base document if it suffers neglect in the interim. And there is no > > guarantee that anyone on the next IESG will be willing to sponsor it > > afterwards. > > That is what I called /abrupt/. > We appear to have different understandings of that word. After 9 years, I pleaded for progress; after 10 years, I gave what amounted to a five month deadline. I would use a word like "generous" rather than "abrupt". > > That's up to the Area Directors. If it were up to me, and reopening the > WG > > is the call, I would be setting an extremely tight charter to resolve > only > > the reporting question, and probably a very short deadline. Any other > work > > would be out of scope. > > It seems like a "no". Yet, the draft is in the initial charter (track 1) > and I > have not heard any refusal on the merits, only on the timing. > Even assuming a wide open charter, you appear to be arguing to adopt a document into a working group that has run out of energy. I don't understand why that's a worthwhile exercise. > Also, if the consensus is option 2 or 3, I would argue we don't need a > > venue just to detach the documents. > > I know we may never see it, but I would bet it would take more discussion > to > change the approved documents for 2 or 3 than to accept the current draft. > That's for the current ADs to sort out. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
