Re: [ogpx] Second Life

Joshua,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:

>
> (The caveat being that submitting a revision to another author's draft
without consent or discussion about hand-off is considered bad form, and
leads to extreme difficulties in tracking changes.)

That would be necessary only if an author were unwilling to take the group's
suggested modifications into account when making new revisions.  That's not
the current position as far as I know.

IETF protocol work is not a war between competing drafts (or at least it's
not supposed to be).  It's intended to be a cooperative analysis of problems
and a group discussion of possible solutions, from which new and better
versions of protocol specs are honed.

To achieve quality teamwork requires that the authors of drafts take the
group's discussions into account when making new versions, otherwise the WG
is undermined.  When nothing is heard because documents are being updated
silently behind closed doors, its sends the wrong message, even if all is
well.  I recommend talking to the group while working on revisions, so that
changes are known to be on roughly the right track throughout the process.

*Traceability* is very important to avoid elements of progress being lost.
Before a new draft is issued, the areas of change really need to be
enumerated first so that it is easy to check that they have been addressed
in the new revision.  Pumping out new revisions without first agreeing on
what is being updated can look like teamwork avoidance, and makes the
group's efforts a lot more difficult.

I think we were on a very positive track in Q4 of last year, and it would be
sad to see a regression.

Morgaine.

=============================

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> But anyhow, i do not  think we have much options other than wait, (or we
>> would have to do the work ourselfs..). Personally i do not feel the time for
>> such drastic steps (starting to write our own drafts) is their yet.
>>
>
> If there was ever any implication that documents from other authors would
> not be welcome, let me dispel that now: within the charter of the working
> group, please please please contribute your thoughts and suggestions as
> informally or formally as you see fit (within the auspices of the NOTE WELL
> yadda yadda). Additional drafts from new authors are explicitly welcome.
>
> (The caveat being that submitting a revision to another author's draft
> without consent or discussion about hand-off is considered bad form, and
> leads to extreme difficulties in tracking changes.)
>
> The charter page http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/vwrap-charter provides
> a roadmap of the expected pieces of the protocol, with completion dates for
> some of them estimated as two years from now. No work has begun on many of
> them, nor is it established that the list is sufficient for defining the
> sort of interop VWRAP envisions.
>
> There are also several chunks mentioned in the charter that are reasonably
> independent of the others that could be tackled now with little dependency
> on other work. I'd encourage list contributors to pick those up, either to
> begin discussion or start documenting and providing sample implementations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>