Rainer, Sam and all: I know that Cisco, for one, has great interest in this work. I agree WG participation is weak, but I think a lot of people are lurking and only voicing opinions when they see issues that really matter to them. Truth is, a lot of the issues are probably not significant enough for people to bother to voice preferences. But that does not mean that there is lack of interest in a syslog standard, or that it is not important.
I have been involved in logging standardization (internal and public) for 4 years now. And it is always hard to get people excited about logging, even thought many people realize it is important. Very few people specialize on logging problems or care to think about them for more than 1 minute. So, I'd venture to say that what we observe in this WG is not unique. Low participation, in this case, does not diminish the value of the work produced by a few people who specialize on the problem. We just need a process that allows work to come to fruition. To this end, I will try to propose very specific clarifications for charter next week. Thanks, Anton. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 12:02 PM > To: Sam Hartman > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Darren Reed > Subject: RE: [Syslog] formal Consultation prior to concluding > the working group > > Sam, > > > However several things become harder if you don't meet. > The one that > > I'm most worried about is making sure there are enough > people in the > > WG who have agreed to write text and enough people in the > WG who are > > reviewing text. If it's just three or four active people, > you don't > > have a working group. > > This is my primary concern at this time - and most probably > the root cause of all the trouble. I do not know how to solve > this. We've tried to promote more participation, but > obviously failed at that... If we can not generate more > interest, we can probably not succeed, no matter if we meet > or not. If you have any idea on how we could change that, I > would deeply appreciate it. But maybe we simply need to > accept the fact that there is not sufficient interest in > syslog to justify any efforts (I am saying this based on > disappointment, but in order to face reality). > > Rainer > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
