RE: Status of the CALSCH working group

Hm, interesting idea.



Satya Vempati <[email protected]> 
11/04/2003 19:06

To
[email protected], [email protected]
cc

Subject
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.