[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proposed new v6ops charter

I'm only responding to a couple of issues because otherwise this seems to be getting to a rathole. If you need more, we can discuss this off-list.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: 
I didn't want to keep 3 and 7. I just wondered if it makes sense to delete
something that we did, instead of including a note as "DONE". Anyway, is not
important, probably I never noticed this when other charters had been
updated and as you say is just ok removing both. I guess also an archive of
the previous versions of the charter should be available somewhere, for
clarity.

It is, a snapshot at the time of a meeting is included in the proceedings.

Not sure why not the WG could act, if required, as a "mini-BoF" to charter
those solutions. What it will be wrong if we do that ? There is any rational
to avoid this which I'm missing ?

Because one intent of a real BoF is to get together people who are interested in the subject (or opposed to the topic). During it along the regular WG process loses that property.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings