Re: [vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director

[David W Levine <[e-mail]>]

I think this makes perfect, if sad sense. The (now deprecated) Charter no
longer reflects what is
being done.

As I recall from the distant past, a charter, roughtly needs:

Some language setting a pretty clear scope, some language describing the
basic approach, and some concrete milestones.

One way forward would be to work on a new charter. Another would be for
various people who have an interest to put out
internet drafts on the ongoing mailing list to drive discussion. I really
think if people want to move the ball forward, one or
the other or both, is required. There's clealy still some interest, but
it's not exactly focused.

- David

p.s. Finally back to full speed, full time typing, after a 3 month down
time due to carpal tunnel, surgery and recovery. You are
all free to debate whether this is a good thing, or  a bad thing.




                                                                                                                                    
  From:       Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>                                                                                
                                                                                                                                    
  To:         Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                    
  Cc:         [e-mail], [e-mail]                                                                              
                                                                                                                                    
  Date:       05/10/2011 10:25 PM                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                    
  Subject:    Re: [vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director                                                            
                                                                                                                                    
  Sent by:    [e-mail]                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                    





Thanks, Barry.

Speaking as the Area Director responsible for the VWRAP WG, I'd like to
make it fully clear that we plan to proceed as follows:

1. Close the working group in its current instantiation

2. Keep the [e-mail] mailing list open

3. Continue discussions on the list

The hope is that folks here can converge on a new direction, leading to
formation of a new working group, or at least to publication of
individual Internet-Drafts that provide a framwork for future efforts.

Peter

On 5/10/11 7:12 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I'm encouraged by Morgaine's assessment of the progress the group is
> making in discussions.  I like that it's taking a broader view,
> looking toward interoperation among different virtual worlds.  The
> discussion of the technology is going in a good direction.
>
> Where it's going is to a very different place than what was set out in
> the VWRAP charter.  The IESG will need to re-evaluate the work when
> the group has things grounded and can propose a new charter, for the
> new direction.  They'll need to see who's invested in the new work --
> who will do the protocol design, who will take on the editing, and who
> will give it the review it needs to be a good standard.  In the
> meantime, this mailing list is the right place for the discussion to
> continue.
>
> The IESG will close out the current charter, and will leave the
> mailing list open.  Remember that the IETF gets most of its work done
> on mailing lists, and not all of them are associated with current
> working groups.  There won't be chairs monitoring it... which means
> that there won't be chairs bugging you about IETF process stuff, but
> also that there won't be chairs nudging you along, so be careful not
> to let that stall the work.
>
> I suggest that the group put its focus on converging on two initial
documents:
>
> 1. A new introduction and overview document, laying out what
> problems/situations/scenarios you'll be addressing, how you'll go
> about it, and what things will look like in the end.  This should lead
> directly to a proposal for a new charter.
>
> 2. A protocol requirements document, specifying what the protocol(s)
> will have to do (and won't have to do).  This will be a strong basis
> for the protocol design, which could be done in that new working
> group.
>
> Please keep this going.  I hope we'll see a charter proposal for a new
> working group fairly soon.
>
> Barry, as chair
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap

[attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by David W Levine/Watson/IBM]
_______________________________________________
vwrap mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap