Re: Status of the CALSCH working group

I appreciate your comments Doug.  However, Ned nor I ever stated it was ok 
to flood inbaskets with email in order to stop people from raising 
objections to items on the draft.  I admit fully that I should have 
stepped in much earlier and put a stop to it.  I know I did send out an 
email a while ago stating that we needed to keep the emails short and 
germaine to the issues.   Go to 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/index.html for a copy of the minutes 
from that meeting.  You will note that one of the things we talked about 
was closing the working group.  It's been kept open to try to update RFC 
2445, 2446 and 2447.  I've failed at getting an editor to work on these 
items.

In addition, I failed to do a good job at keeping the emails to a 
reasonable number.  I realize this now after trying to get through 48,000 
to look for concensus.  I have sent out emails pleading for a reduction in 
the amount of emails and the deluge.  I will formulate a note showing 
dates and times.  However, you bring up a valid point.  I did fail to stop 
the traffic.  Yet another good reason to get another chair.



Doug Royer <[email protected]> 
Sent by: [email protected]
11/04/2003 20:59
Please respond to
[email protected]


To
[email protected]
cc

Subject
Re: 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. 
 
In the S.F. meeting YOU and Ned endorsed that method and indicated you 
would stand by
me to get CAP out without changes unless they were OVERWHELMINGLY 
requested
by the working group. I posted that once before and you did not 
challenge or dispute it. If you
or the AD's are changing you mind that is fine, but please do not put 
the load onto me.
 
In fact Ned directed you to not allow changes unless they were 
OVERWHELMING
in a pre-CALSCH meeting that you, Ned, and I participated in at S.F. 
Then Ned told me
in front of you not to change things unless you called consensus (except 
the items discussed
in the calsch meeting). You have not, they have not changed (+/- typo's 
and such).
I can not find the S.F. meeting notes ,but I seem to recall that you 
made that statement
about no changes unless they are OVERWHELMINGLY requested by the WG
in the meeting itself.

As to me challenging the comments made - I am confused as to who you
think would comment on those posts?

You have ignored ALL of my private emails to you requesting help on this
topic which is why this one is posted publicly.

I have declared several times privately and publicly that my issue list 
went to zero items,
and yet you post:

> 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.
 
I did and again my list is at ZERO technical items (+/- some typos).
Why? - Because YOU and Ned told me NOT to add to change things without
you calling a consensus. And you have not, so there is NOTHING
for me to do except typo's and such.

The latest posts from those wanting changes have little or negligible 
impact on the protocol and seem more to be disputing if something
should have been changed years ago. I can not find a single
item that was not discussed on the WG list prior to the
changes - can you? And those posts that want new items (GET-CAPABILITY
+ CALSCALE for example) are NOT on the item list in SF, so per
your and Ned's instructions to me -  I and not add them.
 
On IMC.ORG there are 12,213 total emails in the archives.
(I simply counted the number of lines that started
with 'Subject:') so it can't be that far off. I looked
in 'current archive' and 'old archive', are there more?
 
Where are the other 35,787 WG emails you talked about above?
Perhaps those are the source of confusion? I remember using
Bruce's archive in the past and noticed that non-WG calendaring
email was in his archive (which is why I stopped using it) - but
there were just a few so I do not see that as accounting for
the the 35 thousand extra emails.

-- 

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
[email protected]                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                               |   Cell: (208)520-4044

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards