Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

[Lawson English <[e-mail]>]

I personally like the book + wiki + forum approach found here: 
http://book.seaside.st/book


But I'm weird.

Rendering of the wiki markup can be output to PDF, latex, HTML or plain 
text and there's no reason why an IETF RFC output object couldn't be 
devised as well, to turn the finished product into the old school text 
RFCs require.


Lawson



On 1/20/11 8:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> With my area director hat on:
>
> a.) I like the idea of collaborative effort at a wiki. This lowers the
> barriers to entry. A big +1.
>
> b.) I'd prefer to see this happen at the official working group wiki:
>
>      http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/trac/wiki
>
> The main factor here is the IETF's policy on contributions, a.k.a. "Note
> Well"...
>
>      http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
>
> I am not a lawyer, but I doubt that work happening at a wiki site
> somewhere else is covered under "Note Well". The last thing we want is
> ambiguity about copyrights and patents, so I strongly encourage folks to
> do this work at the Trac URL I posted above.
>
> To request login credentials, go here:
>
>      http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/loginmgr/newlogin
>
> Thanks!
>
> Peter
>
> On 1/19/11 2:01 PM, Morgaine wrote:
>> The idea of putting this "pre-draft" on a wiki was not mine (the work
>> was started by two other contributors).  I fully support the goal
>> though:  to use a medium where lots of people can have input, even if
>> it's just a single paragraph or just a word correction, so that the
>> initial draft doesn't suffer the problem of inertia while massive
>> changes are afoot.
>>
>> It also overcomes the personalization issue that arises when drafts are
>> tagged officially with a particular person's name.  Since this is being
>> done as a collaborative effort, perhaps it would be fairer if some
>> impartial party tags this initial draft of the "new" Intro instead.
>> We've suffered somewhat with draft personalization issues in the past.
>>
>> Be that as it may, we have much work ahead of us to make this Intro a
>> document that reflects the group's rough consensus of aspirations on
>> interop, even for an initial draft.  We need more people to contribute
>> some typing time.  Those who found the current draft lacking in respect
>> of interop, this is your chance for change. :-)
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ===========================
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Barry Leiba<[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>  wrote:
>>
>>      >  As for timescales, we already started work on a new Intro in
>>      October and
>>      >  November, as I described in my first email in this thread.  It was
>>      being
>>      >  done informally, not as an official draft but as input to a
>>      totally new
>>      >  draft.  It was not being done as a revision because the previous Intro
>>      >  simply did not meet key requirements for many contributors, as was
>>      clear
>>      >  from the group's very intense discussions of September.
>>
>>      Can you see if you can get it into reasonable shape to introduce
>>      publicly, and then submit it as draft-morgaine-vwrap-intro-00 ?  That
>>      would give people something concrete to work from.
>>
>>      Barry
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap