RE: Status of the CALSCH working group

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: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 2:02 PM
To: [email protected]
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.