On 03/Apr/11 18:45, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I think when it's clear there's no more progress that can be made,
you close down and move on. You can always start up a WG later
when there's a chance for better progress or new work to be done.
Is there a difference between the WG and the mailing list, in this
respect? Shutting down the mailing list implies possibly different
members whenever a new DKIM WG will be started up.
Our outstanding chartered items have been getting nowhere for
years. It seems nonsensical to keep it open.
I see some agree on this point. And yet, rechartering was discussed
withing this WG just one year ago, and the text adjusted so as to meet
consensus.
Was the charter perceived as a compromise? I, for one, was not 100%
satisfied with it, but still preferred to remain in the WG to discuss
the parts that I was interested in. Possibly my decision was wrong,
because a smaller and more agile WG may have worked better. RFC 2418
considers closed membership for "design teams" within a WG, but I
never actually saw that here.
My guess is that the paramount impact that spam has rouses too
many people, so that WGs become overpopulated, discussions
difficult, and people nervous. Is it so?
It's certainly true, but I don't think keeping this WG open in
spite of this solves anything.
Yes, the horses are out already. However, in general, I'm very
interested in learning why spam hasn't been stopped by the IETF, and
this sort of WG dynamics seems to be part of the response. (I wasn't
in the MARID, I only read about it after the fact.)
Thanks for all responses, and my apologies for this OT.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html