Would it be possible to get someone like
Nathaniel Borenstein to take the role of a co-editor (if he is interested)? It
would help to have a seasoned veteran of the IETF process to help move things
forward.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of pregen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003
2:02 PM
To: ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx
Subject: Status of the CALSCH
working group
I have been, like I am sure everyone else, trying to
keep up with the deluge of mail, particularly from Doug. I think the
approach of flooding inbaskets with emails challenging comments regarding the
CAP draft has proven to be a bad one.
I
pulled over 48,000 emails into a tool to try to glean out where we reached
consensus (the few times that we did). I also did this to come up with an
issues list. In the past, this was either kept by the chair or by the
editor. Since this has not been done by either, I felt I needed to come
up with something.
However,
it has turned into a much bigger problem that I first anticipated. The
subject line of the note is not enough to determine the bodies of the emails. Some
of the emails have reached "epic" proportions and have as many as 10
subjects embedded in the note. It's no wonder that we can't get consensus
or even determine if we have reached a point where we are close.
Several
months ago I attempted to put a last call out on CAP. At that point,
enough noise was generated on the list to prove to me that CAP in it's current
status is not ready for prime time. And, based on what I am seeing on the
list, when someone makes a point that a section or item is wrong on the list,
we don't get closure or a different solution. We get instead a rash of
emails that make it impossible to keep up with the thread or topic. We
then also start to see the derogatory remarks instead of constructive
criticism.
That
being said, I know I don't have the time to manage this nor does anyone else. If
we were getting constructive dialogs then I would say yes. At this
juncture, all we are doing is spinning our wheels.
Our
deadlines for CAP are all overdue. CAP as it stands is not ready for
prime time.
So,
at the Minneapolis meeting I am going to propose that we close down the working
group and put it on hiatus until such time as we have something that can be
submitted that meets everyone's needs - and not just those of a few people. There
are changes that need to be made to iCalendar, iTIP and iMIP to match what we
have found in interop testing. All of these can be put into new drafts
and submitted privately to the IETF. Most of the changes are areas that
simply do not work - when submitted, they will not break interoperability, they
will ensure it. It will then become the responsibility of the Method
Reviewer to validate that the changes are done. This does not require a
working group to submit these changes.
If
anyone feels I am wrong in closing the group, they are welcome to discuss it
with the Area Directors at the Minneapolis meeting.