Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

Ah, this clarifies his position.  figures that as soon as I send out my 
note a reply comes back from Nathaniel.  8-)




Nathaniel Borenstein <[email protected]> 
Sent by: [email protected]
08/02/2004 18:46

To
"RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email protected]>
cc
IETF calsch WG <[email protected]>, Ted Hardie <[email protected]>, 
Scott Hollenbeck <[email protected]>
Subject
Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG







I suppose I wouldn't have a major problem with the existing group 
staying around to finish CAP *if* there is critical mass to do so. 
What I myself am interested in doing, however, is starting a new group 
to revise iCal.

For my part, I am skeptical that CAP can succeed until iCal is cleaned 
up, and I believe that said cleanup would have a major effect on the 
design of CAP.  For that reason, I just don't see a lot of point to 
trying to finalize CAP now.  I wouldn't care to argue that others don't 
have the right to try, but I'm not sure that a WG is necessary even for 
that.  -- Nathaniel

On Aug 2, 2004, at 5:52 PM, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
>
>> I am opposed to rechartering the calsch group.  My preference would be
>> to shut down the group entirely, and then start a new WG that is
>> narrowly focused on revisions to RFCs 2445-7.  I am particularly
>> skeptical that work on CAP or any similar protocol based on those 
>> RFC's
>> should be done in the same group that is in the middle of revising 
>> them.
>> I think progress will be much faster if we divide and conquer, and 
>> that
>> the (substantial) revisions that are necessary in the base RFC's
>> justifies a new group of its own.  -- Nathaniel
>
> Nathaniel:  just to be clear, the proposed charter I submitted has just
> the one item, completing CAP, and updates the several-year-old calsch
> charter which is now entirely obsolete.  I might interpret your 
> comment as
> saying that this WG should not even adopt this amended minimal charter,
> should not complete CAP, and should close immediately.  Or you might be
> just disagreeing with the idea that 2445-7 revisions be in scope.  Can 
> you
> clarify?
>
>  - RL "Bob"
>
>
>