Thanks Stephen for sharing the draft charter.
Regarding the “minimal bit of progress” mentioned by Stephen:
From my POV, I'm happy to try help out to get a fairly
minimal bit of progress progressed (as an RFC) - if we can
usefully succeed in that (which isn't a given).
Since 4880bis is already in progress and addresses several concerns listed in
the draft charter, with individual changes from 4880 discussed and documented
with consensus in this mailing list, I assume the best way is to adopt the
4880bis and shepherd it towards publication as the first deliverable of the
OpenPGP working group.
I would say adding at least one more Author/Editor to the bis document
is required to ensure timely and coordinated updates of the draft based
on WG consensus.
The current bis document already contains 5 editors, all of whom are active
here, representing various implementations. I’m not sure if adding more
authors/editors will facilitate "WG consensus”. Consensus is not necessarily
universal agreement, as described in RFC 7282.
Kind regards,
Ron
_____________________________________
Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.
On Oct 21, 2020, at 9:29 AM, Paul Wouters
<paul(_at_)nohats(_dot_)ca<mailto:paul(_at_)nohats(_dot_)ca>> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, Stephen Farrell wrote:
The draft charter is at [1].
I would remove the "Other work related to OpenPGP" section. One of the
issues in this group has been sudden new items appearing and being
worked on without consensus. Modify the charter after 4880bis is done
to do "other work"
I would say adding at least one more Author/Editor to the bis document
is required to ensure timely and coordinated updates of the draft based
on WG consensus. As part of the last round of openpgp WG not working
seemed to center around a (perceived or real I have no opinion) disconnect
between WG members and draft author.
Paul
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp