[ldapext] draft charter comment

William Brown <wibrown@redhat.com> Thu, 26 October 2017 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <wibrown@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2931389AC for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yo_xkzlsBgRL for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C64413B472 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA234C0587CA for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:39:22 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com AA234C0587CA
Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=wibrown@redhat.com
Received: from rei.prd.blackhats.net.au (vpn2-54-69.bne.redhat.com []) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06BA95D733 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:39:21 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1509061159.20220.91.camel@redhat.com>
From: William Brown <wibrown@redhat.com>
To: ldapext@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:39:19 +1000
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-PCHOVWgn2Pcnc7y/6IAp"
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com []); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:39:22 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/BKN5DnvOhHFa9et4bP2hqxPBMk8>
Subject: [ldapext] draft charter comment
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:48:14 -0000

Hi all,


as posted my Michael,

I think this looks good. I would say we just need to update the list of
members of said boards/groups to be current and make sure everyone is
still interested in the roles (and understands their responsibilities)

Second, I think we need a section in there about future work? We seem
to list only "lets clean things" as a group, but shouldn't we say " our
charter is to clean up the draft standards and then continue working on
curation of new standards"? 

Otherwise, I think this is good :) the sooner we agree on this, the
sooner we can start the important work,



William Brown
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane