Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call For Adoption: draft-nottingham-safe-hint

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:39:23 +0200

Martin,

On 7/25/14, 3:01 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> I know that two efforts in this space at W3C have produced specs, but
> not much in terms of deployment as far as I know. I have learned from
> Ted that earlier efforts at IETF also didn't work out well.

In fact it was Ted's note that generated the myriad of mail you complain
about below.  Do you have any comments about the substance of those
responses?

>
> But independent from this, having observed the discussion over the
> past few days, I think that the topic already has and will continue to
> generate too much mail to be appropriate for the WG and this list, and
> take away valuable resources from other work.
>
> I therefore oppose adoption of this document by the WG.

If your argument is that the work is unimportant or technically unsound,
then that is one thing.  But judging adoption solely by volume of email
messages says nothing to its technical suitability for adoption, and the
volume of email perhaps argues precisely the opposite, that this is an
important area to many people (otherwise nobody would care).

Eliot

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 23:08:18 -0700

> important area to many people (otherwise nobody would care).

I took Martin's comment as meaning the scope of this work is bigger than
what's intended in terms of APPSAWG's charter, not that the work is
unimportant or the proposal unsound.  Indeed, in retrospect, taking on
WebFinger as an APPSAWG item might not have been such a great idea because
it turned out to be a large project rather than a small one; it may have
warranted its own working group, especially since our current ADs like the
idea of spinning up dedicated, short-lived working groups for such projects.

-MSK

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 17:10:33 +0900

> idea of spinning up dedicated, short-lived working groups for such projects.

Well, I didn't want to add more email to this topic, but just for the 
record, my personal preferences are:
- Individual submission or independent stream (if we think that the
   document is just about describing a deployed 'solution')
- Dedicated WG (if we think that this needs more work)
- not proceeding at all (if we can't agree on either of the above)
(mostly in this order)

And yes, I acknowledge that the motivation (safe content for 
children,...) is important to many people. This includes me. But that 
doesn't mean that it's therefore automatically suitable for adoption as 
a work item for this WG.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 07:18:52 -0700

On Aug 3, 2014, at 11:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I took Martin's comment as meaning the scope of this work is bigger than what's intended in terms of APPSAWG's charter, not that the work is unimportant or the proposal unsound.  Indeed, in retrospect, taking on WebFinger as an APPSAWG item might not have been such a great idea because it turned out to be a large project rather than a small one; it may have warranted its own working group, especially since our current ADs like the idea of spinning up dedicated, short-lived working groups for such projects.

Except that most of the people on the thread don't seem to think that the work is big. The "sure, let's publish it" group believe what the author says, and that it is indeed small. The smaller number of people who are objecting are the ones saying it is bigger; well, they're saying it will be bigger if we give it a chance to be.

FWIW, I'm definitely in the first group. It feels like people in the second group are searching for danger and, because they are searching, finding it.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Aug 2014 11:06:21 -0400

> what's intended in terms of APPSAWG's charter, ...

There seem to be two very different responses to this draft.  One is to 
take it as is, an existing one-bit flag that we can document as already 
implemented, the other is to take it as a starting point for yet another 
set of fine-grained content flags.  (You can probably tell which one I 
prefer.)

If we agree that it makes sense to do it the first way, we could easily do 
it in appsawg.  Personally, I don't think the second approach is workable
for reasons already discussed, but if we were to try, it'd be a swamp and 
a separate WG would keep it from drowning appsawg.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.