Re: question re WG

I suggest that we put the TAO doc into this WG as its goal was to
update documents whereas WEIRD is doing something new.  That
leaves USWG to do the other things.  As for Oslo, I plan to be
there, but perhaps it would be best that intead of taking up a
BOF slot we discuss this during the USWG time - perhaps expand
the USWG time to allow for this.

Ray

On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, April Marine wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The charter for this WG came up before the IESG.  They flagged (not
> unexpectedly) the privacy doc as potentially extremely problematic.  Their
> suggestion was to take the privacy doc off the goals.   We could possibly
> do something, but as we are unclear of what we would do, they suggested we
> not put it in the charter at this point.
> 
> That leaves only the update to FYI 7, the Intermediate Users FAQ.
> 
> My question is: do you want to have a WG for potentially this one doc?  Or
> do you prefer to take that doc into USWG as FYI 4 was?  There are
> advantages either way, so it mostly depends on how you want to do the
> work.  Can I hear votes?
> 
> We have another doc to update, which is the TAO of the IETF doc, which
> could go into this group, into WEIRD, or into USWG.  Any feelings about
> that?
> 
> Finally, if the chairs wish to have this group meet in Oslo, we need to
> request a slot.  At this point, my suggestion would be to request a BOF
> slot as the charter seems still in flux.  Unless, of course, everyone
> votes not to have a WG.
> 
> What does everyone think?
> 
> thanks!
> April
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> April Marine			
> Director of Support Services		+1.650.779.6006
> Internet Engines Incorporated		[email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> 
>