On Feb 20, 2009, at 3:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, February 20, 2009 10:57 -0500 Ray Pelletier
<rpelletier@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 13, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
When will http://xml.resource.org/ and xml2rfc be updated to
include this?
It is in work. A precise date is uncertain today, but is
anticipated early next week.
Are there any changes we need to make to our input xml files?
Those instructions will be provided with the update.
Ray,
The problems that we would have if the decisions needed to build
tools were not available by the 15th or some earlier date were
discussed on the list, I believe in late January. There were
some rather clear commitments that we would not have this
problem, i.e., that the ducks would be sufficiently lined up
that changes could be made and people could post documents with
the workaround not later than the 16th, if not earlier.
So the announcement was made and, despite those commitments, the
ducks obviously were not lined up, the tools were not ready, and
we still can't, in practice, post drafts that need the
workaround text.
So, the Trustees went through a process of community review of the
changes to the TLP
posted on 6 January that resulted in some good suggestions that led to
iterations and
posting of changes on 22 Jan, 5 Feb, 9 Feb and finally 12 Feb. They
even caught where
a change was unintentionally made.
On 11 Feb I notified the 5 volunteers maintaining the tools and
templates that the Trustees
were voting on what I expected to be the last set of changes; advised
them of the changes and asked if they
could have the changes completed in a few days, e.g, 14 Feb. I
asked for estimated delivery dates.
Not all were able to get the changes made. And as I said above I am
uncertain as to the
final tools being completed, but anticipated next week.
Even if we could cut and paste the text in, we
have no statements about where it goes or decisions/opinions
from Counsel as to whether it can be dropped into a random place
in the document or needs to be next to the front-matter
copyright statements.
Section 6b of the Policy says: The following text must be included on
the first page of each IETF Document,
so I am not sure what the controversy is about.
And, today, you respond, not to that January discussion or the
associated commitments, but to a note posted last Friday... one
that it took you a week to get around to responding to when the
commitments indicated that we've have answers contemporary with
the announcement of the new text.
It has taken from last Friday to the other day to ascertain where the
volunteers
stood in the process of updating those tools and templates.
Ray
For all of the reasons cited in the January discussion, this has
gone far enough. Independent of promises about what might get
done next week, I want to know --and I think the community is
entitled to know -- who is accountable.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf