On Jan 31, 2013, at 12:47 AM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> In my re-draft I have tried to retain some of the background, but to > reorganise > the text so that it more pithily describes the working group. That is appropriate for a WG charter. It is especially appropriate here because the WG is not developing protocols. > I present it as an offering at your altar, not as a mandatory change. I don't > want to get in the way of the formation of this WG, but I would like to use > the > week remaining before the IESG telechat to try to get a better charter. If the > mailing list says "We spent a lot of effort crafting the current text. We like > it. It is good" then I am likely to back down. We did not spend much effort crafting the current text, as can be seen from the short length of the BoF archives. I think Adrian's proposal is better than the original because it lets people not yet active in the WG know better what the WG is supposed to be doing. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list wpkops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
