Tony, I'd rather make this reappraisal after we see the composition of the IESG that should be seated in Prague. It seems to me that the key question is whether the IESG is going to be willing to process the documents as originally intended and that might give us a clue. Or not, but certainly we will not have less information.
In theory, we should have that information in well under a month. If we do not, I think I'd suggest going ahead and asking for a meeting slot on the theory that meetings are much more easily cancelled (should that be necessary) than scheduled. I certainly wouldn't object to modifying the charter to include your item C. Finding out whether the IESG would be willing to approve a revised charter that included them but also included the preapproval model for documents that might go from Draft->Full would be another way to get some information. john --On Thursday, January 13, 2011 13:53 -0500 Tony Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, the time has come to start deciding what to do with the > YAM working group. I've been discussing this with my co-chair > and our AD, and I see several ways forward: > > 1) stay on hold -- keep the group in hiatus for another X > months > a) we would need to decide on what X is > > 2) restart work as originally chartered. This means going > back and > picking up where we left off on 5321bis, 5322bis and > 4409bis. > > 3) shut down > > 4) recharter (see below) > > There are several ways we could recharter. > > A) We could eliminate or modify the "process experiment" > we've been > using (where we publish an I-D that indicates what needs to > change, get IESG approval, and *then* proceed with revising > the > RFC). > > B) We could review the documents that were in the > original YAM > charter. For any that we feel need to be revved no matter what > (for example, 3798 MDN (one of my documents) is in this list), > we can proceed with revising them. > > C) We start taking a look at the Proposed Standard > mail-related > standards and see what they need to moved forward to the next > status. > > D) Do something else. > > E) Any combination of the above. > > Please provide your input. We have exactly one month to come > to a consensus, after which it will be too late to schedule a > meeting in Prague (should we decide we need one). > > Tony Hansen > YAM co-chair > _______________________________________________ > yam mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
