Re: Comment on process
I would like to agree with this. I have not had much of a weekend, and I am not sure I will be able to take so much time off work to put into this task. I am being paid to work on an open source blog editor, and I am not sure its ok for me to just spend all my time on this list. Also the proposal I put forward in the Closure on Extensibility RDF thread is itself really a process. I outlined 4 steps to test out my idea. I do not know if it will succeed, just that it would be very elegant if it did. It would help if some more experienced people than me put their head together to help out this process. But my feeling is that they won't bother if they feel that the opening was a sham one. Nobody wants to waste their time. So that is why I asked for a little good will. And I don't think that there should be any bad will, since what I am proposing should have very little impact on what those that don't want to know about RDF want. Henry On 8 Jan 2005, at 23:03, Danny Ayers wrote: I'm not going to argue the point here any further, but feel something has to be said. I am optimistic a compromise on the extensibility/RDF issue can be reached in the given time frame, but find the imposition of such a short period a bit extreme. It isn't that there hasn't been considerable work on RDF-compatibility, that side's potentially trivial (use RDF/XML!), it's the production of a compromise everyone is comfortable with.
RE: Comment on process
No-one gains anything from overly protracted discussion. But I don't seen any extraordinary circumstances that might justify the imposition of cloture. Is there something related to the (still unexplained) deadline mentioned in Tim's recent post? I'm not sure that I understand why you believe the deadline is unexplained. Take a look at the charter for this working group: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atompub-charter.html There are goals and milestones identified with due dates. The working group chairs have an obligation to keep the working group on track to meet those milestones. They can set interim goals for smaller tasks if they feel it's necessary. Given that the goals and milestones were agreed upon as part of the creation of this working group, what's not clear? -Scott- (atompub area advisor)
Re: Comment on process
On Jan 8, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: No-one gains anything from overly protracted discussion. But I don't seen any extraordinary circumstances that might justify the imposition of cloture. Is there something related to the (still unexplained) deadline mentioned in Tim's recent post? Tim already said (before yet another round of RDF waffling started) that the chairs were seeking to produce a final draft. What he did was extend his own deadline to give you time to make a concrete, forward proposal on what needs to be done, either in a PACE (like everyone else) or in a separate draft. If you can't do that in four days then it isn't going in the next draft, which is the only horizon that chairs have control over. As far as process goes, Tim (and Paul) have been exceedingly kind. I would have simply said Put up or shut up some six months ago and further discussion would be out of order until such time as there is a concrete proposal to be discussed. IETF WGs move forward on the basis of rough consensus and running code. Roy
Re: Comment on process
At 11:03 PM +0100 1/8/05, Danny Ayers wrote: I am optimistic a compromise on the extensibility/RDF issue can be reached in the given time frame, Good! but find the imposition of such a short period a bit extreme. The WG has been discussing this for *months*. The fact that the chairs have put an end-point on those months does not make the total time a short period. Given the amount of discussion so far, do you really believe it is impossible to put together a concrete proposal either as a Pace or as an Internet Draft in a week? If so, that indicates that the problem is not describable enough for inclusion in a standard. Tim and I believe that there are some people in the WG who don't believe that, but we need to see proof. I doubt anyone reading Tim's recent posts on the subject of extensibility could come to any conclusion other than that he is vehemently opposed to any inclusion of anything associated with RDF in the core specification. Tim has most recently said The opinion has been forcefully expressed that Atom should adopt an extensibility framework based partly or wholly, directly or indirectly, on RDF. This idea is not unreasonable on the face of it. I cannot parse that in any way that leads to a belief that he is vehemently opposed so such inclusion; the opposite seems much more true. What he and I are asking for is to finally finish. We've talked enough; give a proposal for how to move forward so the WG can come to consensus. Isn't this the first time a strict deadline has been imposed for proposals for any set of features? (Aside of course from the name). Not at all. It has happened many times in the past. Each time we solicit to close issues, there is a (usually implicit) deadline for responding to that call. This is no different, except that we still don't have a Pace or Internet Draft to work from. So, the chairs have two choices in order to come to closure soon on the discussion that is of interest to everyone here: a) Say there is still no proposal, so closure is reached in the negative b) Say we will soon reach closure in the negative unless someone posts a concrete proposal we can find consensus around. At least to me, (b) seems like the better option, yes? No-one gains anything from overly protracted discussion. Fully agree. But I don't seen any extraordinary circumstances that might justify the imposition of cloture. Agree. That's why we are asking for a proposal that we can discuss. Is there something related to the (still unexplained) deadline mentioned in Tim's recent post? See Scott's response, with which I fully agree. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
