Folks,
just checking - should we request to remove the rules language work
item from our charter, or are folks out there willing to start NOW.
Thanks,
Markus
Markus Hofmann wrote:
OK, so we had several folks indicating interest in contributing to the
rules work - let's get staretd, we're still behind.
We need to get closure on the Sieve issue, i.e. might sieve with
possible extensions provide a solution? If not, why not? If not, we need
to get back to defining an own language - starting with what we had on "P".
So, where are the interested folks willing to get rolling?
Thanks,
Markus
Markus Hofmann wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
I did not see anybody digging in. At this point, I have to wonder if
I am the only person left interested in the "common rules language"
problem. Did we lose the momentum and interest on this topic? Does
it make sense to continue working on rules (regardless of Seive
versus P question)?
There were a few folks interested in the topic when the charter was
discussed and before various (mostly IETF-imposed) delays put the
topic on the backburner. Should we assume that those folks lost
interest (due to delays or any other reason)?
Folks - we need to know if anyone is still interested in this work.
Doesn't make sense to drag this along without anyone working on it and
without making real progress.
Could anyone interested in the rules language work please speak up, in
particular the ones who expressed interest in contributing to the work
when we re-charted (don't make me go back into the email archives to
dig out the names... :). If we don't hear back, I recommend we fold
this activity.
Thanks,
Markus