Subject: Re: Protocol next steps

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:50:44 -0700 (MST)

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:

> The timeline you suggest is not one I can meet.  I suggest extending
> this to the end of April.

I am surprised it would take you some 30 days to make a simple(?)
"publish as WG draft" versus "publish as individual draft" decision.
Perhaps you value the outcome more than I do. Regardless of the
submission "type", I would expect to publish at least two more draft
versions before May!

I just want to publish a reference point so that we can build upon it.
I already have one big/important addition/clarification to discuss,
but I hesitate posting it before the first draft is published.

If you can make a wg/individual decision before April 4th, please do
so. Otherwise, I guess we will have to treat your message as an
implicit objection, and I will probably just publish an individual
draft.

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:21:04 -0500

Hilarie,

> The timeline you suggest is not one I can meet.  I suggest extending this
> to the end of April.

the suggested timeline was just for deciding whether we should publish 
this as WG document or as individual draft. This *not* a WG last call 
or such like, we expect to have more interations on this document!!

We just don't want to delay publishing this as ID. We want to have a 
proper reference point, rather than just refering to some emails on 
the list. As such, it would be preferable to publish this - either as 
WG draft or as individual - in the very near future.

I personally feel that the document properly reflects the discussion 
we had so far on the list, and, therefore, am tempted to publish this 
as WG document.

I understand that you won't have the time for a very thorough, 
detailed review until April 4. From your current perspective, would 
you feel uncomfortable with moving this forward as WG draft? If so, 
I'd recommend Alex to publish this as individual. If not, let's 
publish this at WG document and keep working on it in the WG.

Thanks,
   Markus

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:34:38 -0500

Marshall Rose wrote:

> the end of april is too far way. if april 4th doesn't work for you, we can push
> it to the middle of next week, say the 9th... otherwise, i'd rather we consider
> just closing up shop due to lack of metabolism.

Let's stick with the April 4 deadline, so that we get this published 
and a proper reference point very soon.

If people don't feel comfortable with having this as WG document, 
please make this clear to the mailing list by April 4!!!

If there are clear objections by that day, we'll ask Alex to publish 
this as an individual submission, for now, so that we've a proper 
reference point to work with. I would then expect it to be moveed to 
WG document at some later stage. If there are no clear objections by 
April 4, we'll publish as WG document and also keep working on it. 
Somehow, it appears that this is a minor issue, and I'd like us to 
focus on the actual technical work again.

We had plenty of excellent discussion on the mailing list recently, 
with several folks being very active - thanks! If we keep the 
momentum, we don't have to worry about a lack of metabolism, and I'm 
sure some good results will come out of it.

Thanks,
   Markus

---

From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:59:25 -0700

My recommendation will be based on a further careful reading of the
draft, and I'll have comments at the same time, because that's just
the way I do things, and I cannot do that this week, and I'm not sure
when I can do it next week.  The timeline seemed too aggressive for
me, and I thought others might find it so.  Please withhold
further astonishment and speculation on the effectiveness of my
mitochondria.

Hilarie

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:39:17 -0700 (MST)

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:

> the way I do things, and I cannot do that this week, and I'm not
> sure when I can do it next week.  The timeline seemed too aggressive
> for me, and I thought others might find it so.  Please withhold

Given the above, I think we should publish as an individual draft to
give everybody enough time for a thorough review while allowing new
revisions to be discussed and published. Those that do not have a
problem with the draft becoming a WG document can treat it as such
immediately.

Submitting an individual draft should not hurt anything, should it?
Skipping that step would be nice, but it is not a big deal. I will
submit an individual draft in ~12 hours unless somebody stops me.
Let's move on...

Thank you,

Alex.

P.S. I do not think there was any intended astonishment or
speculation, just attempts to clarify what we are after here.

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 15:53:09 -0500

> submit an individual draft in ~12 hours unless somebody stops me.

Yup, please go ahead and publish as individual draft, we don't want to 
delay this. We'll keep moving the draft forward on this mailing list 
with input from the entire WG, with the goal to submit the next 
version of the draft as WG document. This way, we do *not* delay 
making progress, we immediately have a valid reference point, and 
folks still have some time to carefully look at the draft.

However, please note: Possible concerns with the content of the 
document must be brought up while we're working on the next version. 
There will *not* be a separate review time or such like once the next 
version is ready for submission (as WG document). Concerns should be 
expressed while we're on the path to the next version.

Thanks,
   Markus