Re: [Fwd: interest in the rules language]

Folks,

just checking - should we request to remove the rules language work 
item from our charter, or are folks out there willing to start NOW.

Thanks,
   Markus

Markus Hofmann wrote:
> 
> OK, so we had several folks indicating interest in contributing to the 
> rules work - let's get staretd, we're still behind.
> 
> We need to get closure on the Sieve issue, i.e. might sieve with 
> possible extensions provide a solution? If not, why not? If not, we need 
> to get back to defining an own language - starting with what we had on "P".
> 
> So, where are the interested folks willing to get rolling?
> 
> Thanks,
>   Markus
> 
> Markus Hofmann wrote:
> 
>>
>> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>
>>> I did not see anybody digging in. At this point, I have to wonder if 
>>> I am  the only person left interested in the "common rules language" 
>>> problem.  Did we lose the momentum and interest on this topic? Does 
>>> it make sense to  continue working on rules (regardless of Seive 
>>> versus P question)?
>>>
>>> There were a few folks interested in the topic when the charter was  
>>> discussed and before various (mostly IETF-imposed) delays put the 
>>> topic on  the backburner. Should we assume that those folks lost 
>>> interest (due to  delays or any other reason)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Folks - we need to know if anyone is still interested in this work. 
>> Doesn't make sense to drag this along without anyone working on it and 
>> without making real progress.
>>
>> Could anyone interested in the rules language work please speak up, in 
>> particular the ones who expressed interest in contributing to the work 
>> when we re-charted (don't make me go back into the email archives to 
>> dig out the names... :). If we don't hear back, I recommend we fold 
>> this activity.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>   Markus
>>
>