Requests on "de facto charter" discussion

I am finding the responses to the proposed de facto charter interesting.

I do have a number of specific requests below.

I was intrigued by the idea (apparently shared by several people) that the
WG had picked and chosen which 2779  requirements were relevant.  I know we
have had areas where various folks have claimed that some requirement isn't
met by our current docs, but I thought that those were primarily individual
differences of opinion or interpretation.  I couldn't remember any places
where the WG said that it could ignore some part of 2779.

If there are areas we could identify where the WG chose not to be bound by
2779, we certainly need to be explicit about those and explain them. So
here's my first request:

REQUEST 1 is to send me (and the WG) any examples of those areas. I'm asking
for areas where the WG decided that it was OK not to meet the requirement or
that some requirement didn't make any sense.

Next, I am torn between a desire to accurately reflect Marshall's concerns
and an unwillingness to get caught between duelling memories among the
people who participated in the Group of Nine.  I have already spent too much
time ducking that crossfire. ;-)

I'd propose adding the word "minimal" and hope that Marshall might find this
less misleading:

"The goal was to define some common information that would allow some
minimal kind of interoperability of the different protocols, even if a
single protocol was
not possible."

I think this might also help with Adrian's suggestion that we capture more
of the "minimality discipline" we followed wrt what's in the formats,
although perhaps that also needs to be identified explicitly.

I'd also be happy to substitute a more-abstract, less-loaded word than
"interoperability" or "gatewaying" but I can't come up with one.  "Some kind
of interoperability" was intended to be fuzzy enough to cover gatewaying.
When I use words like "interaction" or "communication" instead of
"interoperability", it seems to have lost all content.

So REQUEST 2 is to offer comments about this proposed change.

Finally, I think the concerns about legitimacy and technical soundness will
already be on everyone's minds, but I'd be happy to underscore the concerns
about those areas if the current wording isn't doing it sufficiently. We
could add a sentence after the one about the charter not being updated to
underscore the legitimacy issue.  For example, something like "This failure
meant that it was difficult to judge the soundness of subsequent decisions.
As a result, some parts of the community came to believe that IMPP was
making arbitrary choices and not producing sound results."

REQUEST 3 is to offer comments about this proposed change.

Thanks in advance,

--Mark




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]