Re: [Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']

Mark claimed on 09/08/2003 07:57:19 PM:
> > If you believe that Doug has actually received thousands of
> > emails about this between Cap-10 and now then I have some
> > land to sell you...
> 
> I just checked the list, there were  1580 emails on the list
> from the announcement of -10 (end of Feb) until now.

Actually Doug posted his notice of the final CAP-10 draft to the WG at 
02/28/2003 05:49:21 PM MST (about 7:50PM EST or the middle of the night 
for Europe on a Friday) so for real purposes it wasnt really seen until 
3-Mar-03.

Also, several hundred of the postings recently have been TOTALLY unrelated 
to CAP: there were about Dougs insistance on the delta model for 
RECURRENCE-ID.   So dont try to factor those into your inflated count.  A 
quick check gives me a rough count of just over 350 RECURRENCE-ID related 
postings alone between CAP-11 and CAP-12.

If you plan to inflate your numbers to try and justify your claims, make 
sure you at least try to stick to relevant messages so its not so 
blatently off.

Doug reported on 18-Aug-03:

I have received about 75 typos, grammar, and requests for clarification
to the -11 version of CAP. So I could not get them all in this weekend.

He did not report any reason for the quick release of CAP-12-a so soon 
after 12. 

> If he went back to Jan that is about 150 (est) more.
> Bringing the total to 2010.

The stored query issue was still in discussion until mid/late Jan so that 
should have appeared on the CAP issues list then.  However doing so would 
require discussion on the issue that Doug did not want to have.  My guess 
is he has other motivations for wanting to keep it in since there appears 
to be WG concensus on removing stored queries until after CAP 1.0.

Back on 4-Aug-03 Doug replied to my request for a change list with:
> 1: Is there a diffs of CAP-10 (17-Feb) to CAP-11?  I for one have no 
> time to reread CAP from cover to cover looking for changes.

I'll put one up and then post its location to the WG.

but this never materialized.  The list for CAP-10 to CAP-11 changes should 
have been pretty simple since we spent most of May/June on RECURRENCE-ID 
and not on CAP and there was little WG traffic

A quick count of the WG postings between the 22-Jul-03 annoucement of 
intent to release CAP-11 and 1-Feb-03 reveals ~670 postings.  Of those:

~180 were RECURRENCE-ID related
~110 were iCalendar / UTF-8 / charset related
~30 were "Is CAP-10 ready for Last Call" discussion (not actual issue 
discussion)
~15 were IETF meeting logistics related
~20 were DTEND / DURATION interchange related
~20 were iCalendar / BYDAY / YEARLY related
~10 were iSIP related

If you subtract just the non-CAP related counts above from the total 
postings you will find we had only ~285 postings _potentially_ related to 
CAP (or otherwise uncounted above).  Hardly anywhere near a thousand.

Stop trying to distract our attention Doug and lets get to work on CAP. If 
your intent is still "to oppose ANY AND ALL changes to CAP" then I fear we 
can make no progress and CAP will never get fixed and shipped.

Bruce 
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email protected]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...