RE: To meet or not to meet?

At 12:06 PM +0200 7/20/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>  - Status of the "Definitions of Supplemental Entity Managed
>>    Objects" draft
>>         GOALS:  Technical review & decision about how/if to
>>                 move forward
>>
>
>I'd reather change "Technical review" into something aka "Come to
>resolution about the one oustanding issue."
>
>This debate has been going on for I don't know how long now.

I agree, and your suggestion sounds reasonable to me.

If we can close on the one issue with the draft, Dan Romascanu (who 
has already volunteered) can do a thorough review and we can get this 
document published as a sponsored individual submission without the 
need for a WG re-charter, etc.  It's only a couple of objects, after 
all!

>We better decide which solution we want.
>
>I would URGE everyone who has comments/concerns about a fix/resolution of
>the issue to SEND their proposal to the mailing list (well) BEFORE the
>SanDiego meeting, so we can discuss it and try to come to consensus.

I'll make the same plea for any remaining issues with the Entity 
State MIB.  Personally, I hope that we will leave San Diego with 
either:

     (1) A set of well-defined edits that are required before we send 
the Entity State MIB to the IESG.

OR

     (2) A decision not to proceed with the Entity State MIB at all.

We've spent _far_ to long nibbling at this MIB, and we should either 
ship it or kill it, IMO.

As I think I've said on this list before, it is heavily frowned upon 
for an IESG member to chair a regular WG, and I only continued as 
chair because we were supposed to finish in a few months.  That was 
over a year ago!  No one else has volunteered to run the group, and 
(as a working group, not as individual people) I think we are 
suffering classic signs of having outlived our own usefulness.  So 
let's finish up (one way or the other) and close down.

Thanks,
Margaret