Re: Proposal for a merged document

It would help things greatly to rename the proposal, in order to make it 
  a product of the ASRG and not just individual authors.

Alan DeKok wrote:
>   There hasn't been much more discussion (or objections) about a
> merged document.  After dicussions with the ASRG chairs, we're leaning
> towards the following proposal:
> 
>   1. Use SPF as the basis for the merged document
> 
>    Pro: Meng has done good work to ensure it's pretty much a superset
>         of the other proposals
> 
>    Con: There hasn't been public buy-in from the other draft authors,
>         to agree that the document *is* a superset.
> 
>   2. List me as editor, and the draft authors as authors.
> 
>    Pro: It will be more independent proposal, as none of the authors
>         will be "in charge" of the combined document.
> 
>    Con: No one gets only their name on the proposal.
> 
>   3. Update the document based on discussions on the list
> 
> 
>   Meng has posted updates to the document, but I'm still strongly of
> the opinion that we MUST address the concerns brought up on ASRG, even
> if those concerns are "inventive".  (I'll be polite.)  We MUST acheive
> buy-in and consensus from other people on ASRG, otherwise the proposal
> will never go anywhere.
> 
>   We've had a hard enough time coming up with a combined proposal.
> Once it hits ASRG, there will be even more debate.
> 
>   Comments?
> 
> 
>   If there's no objection, then I'll start editing the document
> tomorrow.
> 
>   Alan DeKok.
> _______________________________________________
> asrg-rmx mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg-rmx
>