ned.freed@mrochek.com
Sat, 07 Apr 2001 11:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
> For the past year, http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/vpim-charter.html
> has said "Archive: http://www.ema.org/vpimdir/minutes.html" instead of
> www.neystadt.org/vpim -- the former address hasn't worked in most of
> that year, and I hope someone will fix it because it looks less than good.
I sent a note to the secretairat about it just now.
> Similarly, the charter claims "Mar 01 Review final work items and close"
> which is wrong,
In theory it would be great if all working group milestones were up to date,
but in practice they often get neglected. So if a WG falls behind (as they
often do) the milestones don't reflect reality. Simply put, this is no big
deal.
Sad to say, the VPIM milestones are actually more up to date that many other
WGs. (I saw one the other day whose last milestone passed in 1997, and there
may be worse examples.)
> although all but three of the drafts seem to be almost
> expired and stale.
Actually, four of the 13 (!) WG drafts have recently been updated. Only two
have expired. I believe various others will be updated soon, but in any case,
draft updates don't correlate well if at all with WG progress.
Note that it is also normal for some drafts to be abandoned as a WG progresses.
> Are those older ones that claim to be on an official
> track a high priority for Ned and Patrik and the other relevant IESG
> people?
Apparently you don't understand how the process works. WG documents are just
that: WG documents. They are the responsibility of the WG at this point, not
the area directors. They don't become an AD issue until and unless they pass WG
last call and the WG chair(s) ask for an IETF last call.
In short, these documents aren't IESG matters at this time so the question of
their IESG "priority" doesn't make sense.
Now, of course the area directors are responsible for the WG as a whole. And
while we'd be delighted if WGs would work faster, we generally don't get upset
unless no progress is being made at all. But VPIM appears to be making
progress.
> It would be REALLY nice to have a status update from an
> authorative source before the drafts expire.
You're placing a lot more emphasis on draft expiration than it deserves. If a
draft the WG is still working on isn't updated in a timely fashion and expires,
the authors will simply repost it. Again, this is not a big deal.
> Finally, it would be even better to have a status update on all of the
> goals listed in draft-ietf-vpim-ivm-goals-01.txt so that spectators know
> where efforts need to be concentrated. (All the new graduate students
> heading back from their failing ventures need something to work on.) In
> all seriousness, I'm hoping Emily will please state what she knows, and
> the Chairs and Applications Area Directors will also please respond to
> their understanding of the progress made on each of the goals. Thank you all!
This isn't going to happen. We are busy people and don't have the resources to
respond to requests to summarize WG activity for your benefit. If you are
interested in this WG you should participate by reading or writing drafts,
bringing up issues on the mailing list, pointing out errors in drafts,
attending WG meetings, and so on. If you participate you'll find that you'll
rapidly develop an understanding of where things are and why. And if you decide
to be part of the process you are free to do so. But don't ask other volunteers
to do your work for you.
> P.S. I would also really like to know from John Noerenberg if and when
> Qualcomm intends to do anything more to support VPIM with PalmOS Eudora
> on wireless mobile microphone-equiped devices. John, I have been in
> contact with your co-workers who have invited me to some very expensive
> marketing events, but have refused to say what needs to be done for the
> PalmOS CPU on the QCP-6035 to read from the voice memo buffer; please help!
We participate in the IETF as individuals, not as corporate represenatives.
John isn't any different from the rest of us in this regard. As such, asking
about Qualcomm product plans on the WG mailing is completely and totally
inappropriate. If you want talk about such things with John you should send
him private mail. Please do not do this again.
Ned
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Apr 07 2001 - 21:55:02 IDT