Back from Prague, and catching up.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it>
wrote:
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.
First, replace "members" with "participants". Active participants
come and go over time, and people subscribe and unsubscribe to many
mailing lists.
It's our intention to leave the mailing list open after the working
group closes. That's the normal case anyway, unless the mailing list
is problematic in one way or another. Also, yes, the archives stay
around, and the charter, along with the pointers to the mailing list
and the archives, are still easily found. Also also, I remind people
that there are other DKIM-related mailing lists on dkim.org, dealing
with development and operations.
In our case, we have an exception to the current rule: our mailing
list is not hosted at ietf.org, and so its persistence can't be
guaranteed by the IETF. That might be a problem in future, though
there's no near-term issue with it. A subsequent "son of DKIM"
working group would almost certainly have a new mailing list at
ietf.org.
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
Everything in life is a compromise; there's seldom something that
everyone can agree on. In our case, the charter reflected "rough
consensus" and expression of energy to work on what's in there. We
turn out to have done two and a half of the work items (half of item
2), and now lack energy and focus for the others. Some might finish
the other half of item 2 (updating the operations/deployment
documents) as individual submissions, if it looks like it's a good
thing to do.
Closing the working group doesn't mean that work on DKIM stops. It
just means that this particular organized piece of work has come to an
end. And I understand Hector's concern about access to MAAWG, but,
again, it's not the only place where there's discussion, and this and
the other mailing lists will continue. Many MAAWG members will still
participate in discussions outside MAAWG, and there should be a flow
of information all 'round.
Barry
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html