Re: Note: WG Process - Was Re: [idn] Traditional-simplified, yet again

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

> I remind you that the difference between the timeline you suggested
and the
> timeline I suggested is about six months, and one of the consequences
your
> schedule is the chance that when the greatest effort is made, it will
be "too
> late".

Yes, and that is still a discussion on another thread in the wg on that
topic so follow up there.

But so far, my take is that there are more people who wants IDN WG to
produce some work so we can move on to discuss other issues than people
who wants IDN WG to slow down. I may be wrong so lets wait for that
discussion to complete.

> There are lots of people I wouldn't "stall the process" for (your
words, not
> mine), some vendors come to mind. The JET membership is not among
them, not
> in my mind, as they are ccTLD NICs, with a "duty to serve the
community" [1].

My note is fairly simple reminder to all that the WG proceed on drafts
in its core interest. We should focus our discussion on the core
interest.

Unpublished drafts or promised draft (be it 2 weeks or 2 months) are not
part of core interest and there should not be foul call when the wg
proceed without them.

I recieve private mails regularly that he/she is going to send in a
draft for review but eventually never made the group at all, some as
long as 18 months ago. Therefore, I am not referring to anyone in
particular.

-James Seng