►
From YouTube: IETF108 RFCEFDP 20200727 1410
Description
RFCEFDP session at IETF108
2020/07/27 1410
A
Hang
on
just
a
moment,
alice
I'm
just
trying
to
sort
through
the
utilities.
A
A
All
right,
let's
go
ahead
and
get
started,
welcome
to
the
rfc
editor's
future
program.
This
is
co-chaired
by
myself
and
brian
rosen
by
way
of
testing
the
tool
I'll
ask
brian
to
say
hello.
B
A
I
know
that
sometimes
the
people
complain
because
it
takes
uses
too
much
bandwidth,
and
I
I
don't
wanna
I'll,
be
yes,
more
video,
okay,
if
people
find
that
the
video
is
too
much,
please
let
me
know
all
right.
Hopefully
you
can
see
me
and
my
lovely
work
area
and
all
right
so
hopefully
brian
will
catch
up.
A
It's
a
tooling
experiment
for
everybody
this
week
and
I
hope
that
we're
all
able
to
figure
out
how
to
how
to
manipulate
things
and,
as
you
guys
are
pretty
much
almost
all
senior
to
me
and
have
probably
been
a
bunch
of
these
things
before
I
know
you
won't
be
shy
in
telling
me
what
to
do
when
I
need
to
do
it.
If
I
can't
quite
get
it
right.
Okay,
before
we
begin,
I
need
some
help.
A
We
did
not
receive
any
volunteer
requests
for
note
taking
or
minute
taking,
and
I
wonder
if
somebody
could
just
shout
out
in
the
chat
room
that
they
would
oops
that
they
would
be
willing
to
participate
to
take
minutes.
Let's
see
here,
nope
you
apparently
are
not
sending
audio
there.
Brian,
I'm
not
sure.
Why
not
so,
let's
see
here?
Okay,
I
have
a
volunteer
thanks.
Braun.
Oh
that's!
That's!
Wonderful!
A
Okay!
Excellent!
Let's
see
here
you
need
to
click
the
send
audio
button.
Let's
see
here
and
if
you
I
don't
know,
if
you're
seeing
the
chat
therma,
you
must
be
seeing
the
chat
because
you
chatted.
Let's
hope
you
are.
C
A
So,
let's
see
here,
we
shall
begin
and
the
way
we
begin
with
all
these
meetings,
of
course,
is
with
the
notewell.
D
A
Well,
all
right,
no
we're
beginning
with
a
picture
of
the
tomatina.
This
is
a
an
annual
spanish
festival
which
we're
missing,
unfortunately,
hopefully
we'll
get
a
chance
to
to
to
to
go
to
spain
the
next
time
it
it
occurs,
roughly
speaking
a
little
bit
later
than
the
ietf
meeting
was
slated
for
but
obvious.
A
This
is
a
slide
I've
used
previously
and
sometimes
I
think
it's
a
reflective
of
the
sausage-making
process
of
standardization,
and
so
hopefully
today
we
won't
have
one
of
these,
but
you
know
you've
all
been
in
one
of
those
meetings
and
and
so
a
welcome,
and
then
here
we
do
have
the
notewell
brian
and
I
got
to
discuss
a
little
bit
about
what
we
thought
we
wanted
from
this
meeting
early
on
when
he,
when
he
joined
and
brian
as
soon
as
you're
able
to
join
just
interrupt
me
and
speak
okay.
A
A
A
If
I
can
hear
a
us,
I'm
pretty
sure
we
should
be
able
to
hear
him.
So
I'm
not
quite
sure.
What's
going
on
with
that,
so
let's
see
here
all
right,
let's
let's
proceed
and
then
we'll
just
sort
of
make
our
way
through
this,
and
if
somebody
wants
to
try
and
hopefully
brian
will,
will
rejoin
and
have
the
necessary
access
so
yeah
it
could
be
that
he's
had
that's
a
good
point.
Wes
could
be
that
he's
having
problems
with
connectivity
all
right.
A
So
you
all
know
the
note.
Well,
some
of
you
know
it
better
than
me,
and
some
of
you
probably
had
something
to
do
with
writing
it.
So
we're
gonna
proceed
under
the
assumption
that
we
know
the
note
well,
so
we
have
the
basic
part
of
the
agenda
today.
The
overall
goal
is
that
that
we
wanted
to
see
if
we
could
find
a
direction.
A
There
are
clearly
a
number
of
points
of
view
that
people
have
shared
and
we
wanted
to
see
we
wanted
to
test
if
we
could,
if
we
could
pick
the
one
direction
and
sort
of
travel
in
that
direction
in
the
process
of
in
terms
of
trying
to
define
a
proposal.
So
video
closed.
E
A
Okay,
you
just
can't
see
me
so
I'm
gonna
try
sending
video
again
all
right
all
right,
so
we
you
know,
we've
heard
a
lot
from
we've
had
a
couple
of
proposals
that
were
written
out.
We
have
a
we've
had
a
couple
of
good
interim
discussions,
and
this
is
a
you
know.
It's
an
iab
program,
even
though
it's
run
like
a
working
group.
A
One
of
the
things
about
iab
programs
and
ied
efforts
in
general
is
that
they
tend
to
look
very
far
into
the
future
or
and
and
also
sometimes
have
very
broad
scope
beyond
what
a
working
group
would
normally
have,
and
so
we
that
means
that,
just
that
the
problems
that
we're
dealing
with
are
are
a
little
bit
more
difficult
to
sort,
and
so
you
know
that's
why
I
think
you
know
if
it
seems
like
we've
taken
a
slow
start
and
a
little
bit
meandering.
A
Part
of
that
is
just
in
the
way
that
our
program
is
described.
We
you
know
we
have
a
very
open
mandate,
and
so
we
need
to
find
our
way
a
little
bit
and
we've
had
some
really
good.
A
If
we've
had
some
really
good
discussions,
you
know
in
terms
of
what
people
want,
what
what
their
goals
are.
We've
created
a
bit
of
a
wiki
here
and,
and
we
we
documented
some
of
those
out,
and
so
you
know,
we've
we've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about.
A
You
know
what,
along
those
lines
and
the
sole
decision
that
I
think
we've
come
to,
and
it's
not
a
perfect
consensus,
but
a
a
reasonable
one
is
a
reasonably
more
than
rough
consensus
is
that
we
we've
already
decided
that
in
the
future
at
least
as
we
write
out
whatever
it
is,
we
write
out.
We
know
that
the
rse
will
not
have
veto
authority
on
documents
and
so
well.
A
Congratulations
group
we've
made
one
decision
actually,
which
is
pretty
good
and
we've
actually
made
a
couple
of
more
minor
ones
which
are
more
around
you
know.
Should
we
you
know,
should
we
establish
the
way
we're
operating
and
such
like
that,
and
we
we're
now
turning
away
from
you
know,
just
problem
definition
a
little
bit
toward
you
know:
can
we
pick
a
road
and
and
and
sort
it?
A
A
What
we
wanted
to
do
was
actually
go
through
a
lot
of
these
questions
and
we,
we
have
a
very
if
you
will
say,
abbreviated
agenda,
that
is
to
say,
everybody's,
had
the
opportunity
to
review
this
material.
For
you
know
some
number
of
weeks
we've
had
a
lot
of
discussion.
A
We're
going
to
try
to
make
use
of
the
hum
tool
which,
hopefully
brian
will
will
help
out
on
once.
He
catches
up
otherwise
everybody's
going
to
help
me
a
little
bit
in
terms
of
how
to
go
using
this,
and
the
goal
is
really
just
to
hum
along
a
couple
of
lines.
We
have
enough
time
for
a
little
bit
of
discussion
on
each
point,
but
not
a
lot
of
time,
so
I
I
think
the
way
we
brian
and
if
you
could,
you
can
type
this
into
the
chat.
A
I
think
what
we
said
was
about
10
minutes
or
so
per
question
plus
minus.
If
we
get
past
the
questions
faster,
then
we
can.
You
know
we
can
spend
more
time
and
the
idea
is
to
to
based
on
the
hums
and
once
they're
confirmed
on
the
mailing
list.
We
would
we
would
we
would
we
would.
A
We
would
then
try
to
develop
proposals
along
the
lines
of
the
results
of
the
hum
and,
let's
see
here
so
that
having
been
said,
I
just
want
to
back
up
to
the
agenda
for
a
moment,
because
I
forgot
to
do
one
thing
which
I,
which
is
the
top
agenda
item,
and
before
we
go
any
further.
Are
people
comfortable
with
sort
of
where
we're
going
I'll
just
open
up
the?
Do?
People
feel
the
need
to
bash
the
agenda
further
and
I'm
really
hoping
not
because
this
material
has
been
out
there.
A
Okay,
very
good,
then,
let's
see
here
knowing
that
it,
my
mic
is
working,
I'm
assuming
that
everybody
else's
is
except
for
brian's
I've
heard
wes.
Let
me
just
make
sure
that
there's
no.
Does
anybody
see
any
questions
popping
up
in
the
queue
I
don't
see
any.
So
I
think
we
seem
to
be
okay
all
right,
then
let
us
proceed
back.
Let
us
travel
forward
on
the
slides
right.
So
our
first
question-
and
I
just
want
you
to
look
at
sort
of
the
the
top
half
of
the
screen.
A
B
A
All
right
so
I'm
hearing,
I
think
I
heard
lucy
there
you
chime
in
good
morning
lucy
and
thanks
for
joining
at
a
very
early
hour,
for
you
presumably
or
was
it
wasn't
you?
Okay,
sorry
can.
A
D
D
A
A
Let's
see
here
so
our
first
question,
we
had
some
some
dialogue
here
on.
You
know,
how
is
it
that
the
the
the
rpc
itself
would
be
structured
and
you
know
who
who
actually
is
going
to
manage
the
rpc
in
the
future?
And
you
know
today
it
pretty
much
runs
through
the
through
the
ed
and
and
then
up
to
the
llc,
and
so
there
was
some
discussion
of
actually
having
somebody.
You
know
that
that
separately
manage
manages
the
the
the
rpc
or
joel.
F
There
so
I
was
trying
to
actually
use
the
cue
procedure
requesting
and
waiting
until
it
was
granted
rather
than
just
grabbing
it,
which
yes,
it
works,
but
it's
not
good.
There
there's
an
oddity
in
the
way.
You
phrase
that,
because
currently
the
executive
director
doesn't
in
a
day-to-day
sense,
manage
the
rpc
ams
does
that
so
I
just
found
the
phrasing
a
little
odd.
So
I
wanted
to
request
clarification.
A
Yeah,
I
think
the
intent
here
and
people
this
is
where
we
get
our
10
minutes
of
discussion
is.
Is
it
is
to
be
clear
at
number
one
that
there
is
going
to
be
somebody
other
than
the
eddy?
Who
is
responsible
for
who
is
separately
responsible?
I
should
say
for
rpc
management,
apart
from
any
strategic
functions,
that
we
discuss
later
right,
that
the
rp
that
there
via
person,
who
who
is
responsible
for
managing
and
standing
up
for
and
in
front
of
the
rrpc
dave,
go
ahead.
A
G
Because
you
could
argue
that
the
executive
director
is
specific
to
the
ietf
stream,
you
might
be
able
to
argue
that
about
llc
or
whatever,
but
iab
you
could
argue,
is
over
all
streams,
as
is
the
in
some
sense
right
in
terms
of
the
the
program
as
well
as
the
current
rsc
is
over
all
streams,
and
so
I
think
part
of
this
question
about
is
there
a
person
other
than
the
ietf
executive
director
who
manages
the
rpc
for
all
streams
would
be
a
way
of
refining
the
question
in
a
way
that
might
become
clear
for
some
people's
opinions.
H
H
I
mean
we're
taking
position
on
what
sure
shouldn't
happen
as
a
practical
matter.
The
money
is
coming
from
the
ietf
llc,
and
so
as
long
as
that
continues
to
be
the
case,
I
don't
see
how
the
the
executive
director
can
do
other
than
manage
the
rpc
in
some
sense.
A
Right
so
thanks,
ecker
and
good
morning
to
you
insert
ietf
before
executive
director.
I
J
F
Thank
you,
okay.
So,
yes,
my
point
was
the
llc
executive
director
jay,
manages
the
contract
and
has
overall
responsibility,
but
does
not
do
day-to-day
management
and
nothing.
I've
heard
in
any
of
the
discussions
and
on
the
list
suggested
that
we
wanted
to
task
him
with
day-to-day
management
of
the
people
on
the
rpc.
F
F
A
F
F
A
F
F
The
now
the
question
of
who
ams
reports
to
about
those
projects
historically
has
been
the
rsc,
and
there
is
some
question
that
maybe
it
should
be
the
ed-
and
I
understand
that
question,
but
if
you
phrase
it
the
way
you
have
right
now,
I
have
no
idea
how
to
hum.
A
Okay,
so
give
me
better
phrasing
on
this:
if,
if
we
can,
the
the
the
the
goal
here
is
to
establish
who
does
the
the
the
the
product
manager,
the
project
management
and
the
rpc
management
in
particular?
F
A
A
Okay-
let's
see
here
chris
christian.
D
C
Yeah
there
are
two
parts
in
the
rpc
ic
work
in
practice:
there's
one
part
which
is
unstucking
the
rpc
when
there
is
a
difficult
editing
decision
to
make
and
that's
what
we
tended
to
call
the
tactical
part
in
the
in
the
in
the
contract
for
john
and
but
that's
not
exactly
management,
it's
more
advisory.
C
C
How
long
does
it
take,
and
things
like
that
now,
the
relation
is
supposed
to
be
today
that
the
rac
sets
those
performance
goals
with
discussions
with
dr
sock
and
whoever
and
the
llc
and
ndm
and
then
so
setting
the
password
is
one
thing.
The
next
thing
is
the
rsc
decides
or
makes
a
report
regularly
about
whether
the
rpc
is
meeting
those
performance
goals
and
the
thing
which
is
really
project
management
for
me
is
that
latter
part.
C
A
So,
just
just
I
want,
I
want
you
to
restate
again
what
you
were.
What
you're
saying
christian
is
so
you
have
one
part
which
is
who
who
sets
performance
goals
for
the
rpc
and
whole
and
holds
them
accountable.
No.
A
M
Okay,
good
sorry
way
too
many
buttons
again.
The
rpc
is
a
contracted
entity
once
the
contract
is
set,
the
management
of
that
is
solely
the
on
one
side,
the
llc
and
whoever
they
assign
to
manage
the
contract.
On
the
other
hand,
on
the
other
side,
it's
whoever's
managing
the
rpc
people,
so
the
performance
goals
are
set
in
the
contract
with
community
input.
M
C
I
would
agree
that
that's
what
it
should
be.
In
theory-
that's
not
what's
happening
in
practice
because
in
practice
the
performance
goals
have
to
change
over
time
based
on
circumstances,
for
example,
as
a
consequence
of
doing
the
new
format
work
that
happened.
It
happened,
mid
contract
for
the
rpc
and
then
the
the
work
changed,
and
so
in
practice
today
the
rsc
was
tasked
in
revising
the
performance
goal
of
the
rpc
why
the
contract
was
going
on.
C
N
Hi,
so
I
think
this
is,
I
think
the
questions
are
confusing,
because
I
think
there's
clearly
the
llc
manages
the
contract.
N
What's
some
of
the
things
in
the
contract
are
more
policy
that
are
probably
not
created
by
the
llc,
so
I
I
think
these
I
think,
trying
to
capture
this
in
this
way.
Doesn't
there's
not
really
a
quest
as
both
I
think,
christian
and
mike
have
said
you
know,
there's
not
a
there's,
not
a
question
here
to
hum
it's
the
words
need
to
be
more
accurate
to
map
what
we're
actually
trying
to
do
here.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
what
I've
heard
is
that
there
has
been
confusion
in
the
past
about
this
and
there's
been
some
debate
as
to
the
role
of
the
rsc
you'll
notice
that
the
rsc's
name
has
not
yet
appeared
here
right.
So
the
first
question
is
wait.
A
A
A
A
D
A
So,
thank
you
for
the
comment.
This
was
meant
to
be
sort
of
a
warm-up
question
and
it's
clearly
warmed
things
up
a
bit
more
than
we
intended.
But
if
people
don't,
if
people
don't
believe,
we
can
answer
this,
we're
going
to
move.
D
A
Okay,
all
right
just
a
moment,
so
the
next
question
is
more
around.
This
is
shorthand
for
the
discussion
we've
been
having
right,
which
is-
and
this
is
not
we're
going
to
need
to
wordsmith
the
question
now
that
I
look
at
it
a
little
bit
more,
which
is
unfortunate,
but
there
it
is.
We
have
we've
had
some
discussion
about
how
the
role
the
rfc
series
should
be
managed
over
time,
and
is
it
it?
Should
there
be
a
board,
a
la
and
our
sock,
or
something
like
that.
A
A
standing
working
group
much
very
much
similar
to
what
we
have
here
right
or
a
program
very
much.
A
combination
of
the
two
as
a
means
for
overseeing
the
the
strategic
direction
of
the.
C
A
Oh,
we
can
do
this
uneasy,
okay,
so
let's
let
me
make
clear
that
the
question
just
so
that
word.
D
While
you're
doing
that,
russ
joel
go
ahead.
D
A
Okay,
so
these
are
the
questions.
Let's
give
a
few
minutes
for
for
comment
right.
There
is
discussion
about
the
stream
managers.
We've
talked
about
this
being
a
standing
group.
There
are
other
people
who
would
like
a
board
mike
could
have
put
forward
a
proposal
along
those
lines
and
then,
let
me
just
say,
michael
go
ahead.
M
Thanks,
obviously,
the
one
thing
that
we're
missing
here
is
the
rrc
so
part
of
part
of
the
process
there
there
may
be
a
combination
of
them
and
I
think
they
are,
I
think,
a
professional
rrc
is
is
still
one
of
the
things
we
want
to
think
thinking
about
here.
A
We're
getting
there
that
there's!
That's
part
of
this
question
so,
okay,
so
your
one's
thinking
could
be
that
you
have
a
person
who
does
all
of
this
ongoing
strategizing
and
not
a
word
group.
So
that's
a
fair
point
mike
and
then
the
question
will
then
turn
around
and
turn
to
how
that
person
is
managed
right.
A
M
No
not
actually
again
same
same
argument
with
respect
to
the
rpc.
This
is
a
contractor.
The
management
of
the
contract
and
the
contractor
comes
under
the
llc.
The
relationship
of
the
program
comes
under
this.
This
is
not.
This
doesn't
give
this
group
of
people
the
right
to
tell
whoever
you
hire
as
the
rse
what
to
do
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
This
is
a
group
of
people
that
helps
with
the
ongoing
strategy
for
the
rs
for
the
rfc
series
itself.
M
A
Martin,
okay,
yeah.
L
Trouble
with
what
your
requirements
are
yeah,
can
you
state
the
requirements
that
you're
trying
to
address
by
filling
this
hole?
This
is
this
is
the
problem.
A
Q
Can
you
hear
me
yeah,
yeah
good
evening,
good
evening
actually
good
morning,
so
I'm
having
trouble
separating
this
some
aspects
out
of
this
question
to
me
this
mixes
in
the
notion
of
of
how
we
determine
the
strategy
and
how
open
that
process
is.
So
you
know,
presumably
if
it's
a
person
that
person
could
just
make
the
decision
themselves
and
walk
away
or
they
could
consult
the
community
widely
or
they
could
be
held
accountable.
Somehow
this
doesn't
speak
to
that.
Q
If
it's
a
board,
it
could
be
a
board
in
secrets
that
has
secret
meetings
and
never
reports
the
community
or
it
could
be
a
very
open
process.
A
working
group
obviously
is
more
open.
I
think
that's
more
accountable
and
that's
why
I
would
be
tilted
towards
that.
But
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
conflate
these
things
or
whether
you
want
to
separate
them.
A
I'm
not
sure
what
you
mean
by
conflate
or
separate
mark
the.
I
understand
that
I
think
your
point
is,
and
let
me
see
if
I
can
restate
it,
which
is
that
if
you
have
anything
other
than
the
working
group
or
an
open
working
group,
then
you
have
to
explore
the
accountability
of
each
of
these
individuals.
Would
that
be
the
fair
statement.
Q
Not
only
accountability,
but
also
you
know
how
it
interacts
with
the
rest
of
the
community.
It's
not
just
you
know
the
sort
of
democracies.
It's
also
you
know,
do
they
take
input
from
the
rest
of
the
community
and,
if
so,
how
and
is
that
input
in
the
open
or
is
it
secret?
It's
transparency.
Thank
you.
Rich.
Q
A
Personally,
okay,
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out.
A
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
Yeah
I'll
stop
it
I'm
not
sure,
but
okay
yeah,
it
is
yeah.
It
is
a
committee,
but.
D
H
H
Moving
from
my
strategy
perspective,
I
guess
perhaps
I
think
part
of
the
problem
is
the
use
of
the
word
addresses
here
because,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
the
last
major
thing,
we
did
actually
had
like
pretty
wide
participation
with
the
xml
thing
and
did
and
wasn't
just
like
you
know-
was
it
just
driven
by
some
small
set
of
people
at
the
end
of
the
day.
H
Let
me
open
for
comment,
so
you
know
I
I
guess
so
you
know,
and
in
that
case
there's
a
concept,
perhaps
of
leading
the
strategic
conversation
versus
the
concept
of
how
this
is
a
conversation
happens.
I
don't
see
how
one
can
make
like
major
changes
to.
Like
the
I
mean,
we
can't
even
figure
out
how
to
make
major
changes
like
the
organization
of
the
system
without
having
like
an
open
discussion,
so
I
can't
imagine
making
major
change
like
the
system
as
a
whole
without
a
normal
with
an
open
discussion.
H
So
I
don't
think
questions
so
much
necessarily
who
sets
the
strategy,
because
all
these
sort
of
things
that
are
like
well,
we
have
some
close
small
group
that
makes
those
decisions
like
unacceptable.
It's
who
is
responsible
for
driving
that
conversation
and
and
then
that
question
then
is,
I
think
you
know
how
much
you
already
know.
What's
working.
A
Okay,
I
have
a
question
which
is:
has
anybody?
Has
anybody
who
spoke
that
they
actually
get
to
see
the
slides
in
advance
for
the
questions
in
advance?
Because
that's
you
know
we
sort
of
have
a
question
that
follows
along
those
lines
and
so
that
maybe
there's
too
much
packed
into
the
chairs
heads
that
we
short-handed
things
just
a
bit
too
much
right,
which
is
the
presumption,
is
that
somebody
has
to
either
address
or
oversee.
A
If
you
would
prefer
the
word
right
or
actively
participate
in
the
development
of
the
strategy
for
the
series,
and
so
that
would
be
either
a
small
group
of
people,
and
I
want
the
reason
I'm
a
little
nervous
about
person
being
here.
Right
is
that
we
have
this
other
question.
That's
sort
of
hanging
out
there
right,
which
is.
A
Who
can
do
who
can
drive
the
community
to
to
to
answer
some
of
these
questions
and
that
thought
leader
could
be
responsible
to
a
committee
in
terms,
or
at
least
the
purpose
of
that
person
would
be
to
to
essentially
drive
the
discussion
right
and
then
for
the
either
the
committee
to
make
a
decision,
a
working
group
to
make
a
decision
stream
managers
to
make
a
decision,
I'm
not
sure
about
a
person
making
a
decision,
but
putting
this
into
context
does
that?
I
Discussion
and
mike.
D
R
Okay,
all
right,
I
was
going
to
say,
I
think
we
need
to
be
clear.
What
type
of
committee
is
meant
I
mean
mike
suddenly
had
one
proposal
which
has
some
merits
and
some
problems.
I
think
you
could
argue
that
the
existing
arsoc
is
a
committee.
R
People
would
necessarily
want
that
to
continue
as
the
the
the
the
body
for
this
role.
You
could
also
argue
the
iab
would
be
a
committee
and
I'm
sure
you
could
think
of
many
different
models
as
well.
R
A
With
us
for
a
moment,
the
reason
we
we
ain't,
we
asked
the
question
at
the
general
level
was
that
the
next
step
would
be
to
ask
exactly
that
question.
Okay,
let's
see
if
we
can
come
up
with
the
sort
of
committee
that
people
would
be
happy
with,
and
let
that
be
a
working
item
as
a
next
step
right,
which
all
of
these
things
are
rather
general
and
would
require
further
development
as
a
next
step.
The
this
is
not
you
know,
just
as
you
said,
it
could
be
many
different
types
of
committee.
R
A
M
You
know
hi
yeah,
you
were
talking
about
the
xml
stuff
as
as
sort
of
one
of
those
things,
that's
sort
of
strategy
and
the
strategy
was
actually
do
we
change
the
strategic
question
was
actually
do
we
change
from
our
our
reference
implementation
being
text
to
something
else.
M
The
implementation
of
that
turned
out
to
be
yeah,
we'll
pick
up
the
xml
we're
already
doing,
and
then
the
actual
implementation
of
that
was
a
combination
of
a
good
xml
person,
plus
the
guidance
of
the
rse
plus
various
other
folks.
Talking
about
the
the
vocabulary,
if
you
will
so
I
wouldn't
I
wouldn't
stick
your
I
would.
I
would
try
and
sort
of
go
up
another
thousand
or
two
thousand
feet
when
you're
thinking
about
strategy.
Here,
okay,.
B
So
you
know
the
I'm
torn
right
this.
This
discussion
is
incredibly
important,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
that
this
group
really
needs
to
concentrate
on
is
one.
C
B
A
decision
fast
enough-
and
I
think
we
can
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
this
and
we
are
in
the
process
of
designing
a
committee
as
a
committee.
So
it's
you
know
early
committees
all
the
way
down
at
this
point,
and
how
do
we
avoid
the
mistakes
of
the
past,
which
specifically
came
out
of
you
know
a
committee
in
the
first
place
it
didn't
work
out.
B
Well,
so
I
I
don't
have
an
answer
out,
but
I'm
just
warning
you
that
this
looks
like
a
a
rather
large
time
sink
to
not
make
a
whole
lot
of
progress
forward
on
the
bigger
picture.
A
Michael
and
if
if
there
is
an
rsc
and
that's
a
big,
if,
if
right,
there's
still
a
whole
question
about
that,
that
person
would
presumably
at
least
either
lead
or
either
lead
this
committee
or
have
a
have
a
big,
a
big
role
in
terms
of
this,
of
facilitating
the
establishment
of
the
strategy.
M
So
it's
actually
one
of
the
things
we're
getting
confused
about
here.
It's
basically
a
committee
of
experts,
as
opposed
to
the
working
group
standing
program
where
anybody
can
join.
So
you
may
want
to
just
tag
that
particular
thing,
or
at
least
that's
what
I'm
thinking
of
it.
As.
A
M
No,
what
I'm
saying
is:
there's
a
big
difference
between
a
committee
of
experts
and
a
committee
of
random
people
joining
just
because
they're
have
they
have
an
interest
so
and
that's
what
the
working
group
standing
program
might
be
closer
to,
whereas
what
we're
generally
thinking
about
are
people
who
are
the
stream
managers
tied
into
a
daily
tied
into
a
need
to
to
advocate
for
what
they
what
they
need
from
their
streams,
as
opposed
to
a
working
group
standing
program
where
random
people
come
in,
spend
five
minutes,
throwing
things
at
stuff
and
then
leave.
M
A
Okay,
I
think
I
I
I
do
think
we
have
a
pretty
clear
choice
here
right,
but
things
things
need
to
be
worked
out
right
either
we
have
a
committee,
that's
going
to
oversee
this,
or
we
have
a
pretty
much
an
open
working
group
right.
These
are
these
are
in
and
by
the
way
or
we
have
a
person
overseeing.
Please.
D
S
Oh
yeah,
I
I'm
really
upset
with
what's
going
on
at
the
moment
because
see
I've
been
shouted
down
by
people
who
call
themselves
experts,
and
I
raised
some
very
simple
issues
about
the
svg
spec.
S
S
A
Yeah
phil
thanks
for
the
comment,
certainly
it
it
isn't
good
when
people
claim
that
that
things
were
done,
that
weren't,
the
chairs
are
sitting
here
chatting
in
the
background.
We
do
want
to
call
this
particular
question.
Okay
and
the
way
we
want
to
do
it,
I
think,
is
we're
going
to
give
sort
of
three
choices
to
see
if
we
can,
if
we
can
resolve
some
of
this
as
a
starting
point,
not
an
ending
point
right.
A
The
idea
is:
how
should
we
focus
our
work
as
we
move
forward
with
the
assumption
that
a
there
will
be
a
committee
b,
there
will
be
an
open
and
there'll
be
an
open
working
group
or
c.
There
will
be
a
person,
and
if
there's
a
person,
that's
managing
this
right,
then
we
have.
Then
that
means
that
the
next
step
is
that
you'll
need
to
be
some
sort
of
or
actually
for
each
of
these
right
there
would
have
to
be
some
sort
of
proposal
made
that
furthers
any
of
this.
N
It
should
be
the
rfc
series
editor,
who
is
the
the
lead
on
the
strategy
for
the
rfc
series,
how
they
implement
that,
whether
probably
people
behind
them
around
them
in
a
bunch
of
different
roles?
We
can
talk
about
light
but
later,
but
I
think
the
simplest
answer
for
this.
It's
the
rfc
series
editor.
H
Go
ahead:
yeah,
okay,
yeah!
This
seems
like
a
little
premature
home
wise.
This
discussion's
been
all
over
the
place
and
I
understand
the
chairs
we
want
to
prune.
But
the
idea
that
we're
gonna
like
have
15
minutes
of
discussion
and
then
on
the
one,
maybe
the
most
important
question
that
seems
misguided.
D
Eric,
if,
if
we
could,
if,
if,
if
the
hub
shows
that
everybody
wants
the
rc,
then
we
learn
something.
If
the
hum
shows
that
we're
30
30
30,
then
we've
learned
something
else:
we're
just
trying
to
figure
out.
If
there's
any
consensus
within
the
work
group
at
all
right,
we're
all
over
the
map,
we're
trying
to
get
to
the
point
where,
instead
of
everybody
having
25
opinions,
we're
down
to
a
smaller
number,
you
don't
think
that
that's
worthwhile
at
this
point
or
possible.
Is
it
even
a
better
question.
L
A
Okay,
let
me
ask
the
question
I
I
I
do
do.
First
of
all
is:
do
people
agree
with
eric?
I
mean
if
people
think
we're
premature,
then
we
will.
We
will
step
back
and
and
continue
the
discussion
it
will
take
a
while
right.
Sometimes
these
things
do
and
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
step
up
our
interim
our
interim
meetings
that
we
get
some
more
face-to-face
time
to
actually
try
and
develop
the
the
concepts
that
people
want
to
put
forward
as
alternatives.
A
D
D
N
D
D
D
D
R
N
D
A
F
A
D
Way,
we
can
do
it
yes,
so
we
will
run
two
questions,
a
hum
for
yes
and
a
hum
for
no.
Are
we
now
clear
on
what
we,
what
we
have
all
right
so
for
those
who
those
who
think
we're
ready
to
try
to
run
this
three-way
question?
Please
hum
now.
D
D
D
D
A
D
Long
tail
around
right,
it's
slightly
stronger
for
not
doing
it.
It
was
piano
versus
forte
right
now.
What
do
you
want
to
do.
A
Well,
that's
the
question,
so
it
seems
to
me
like
we.
We
need
to
develop
this
question
quite
a
bit
more
right
which
is
yeah
right
and
what
I
I
guess,
what
we'll
we'll
do
is:
let's
spend
a
little
bit
of
time,
because
it
seems
to
me
that
mostly
this
is
our
work
here.
Yeah.
J
A
So
what
maybe,
what
we
can
do
is
propose
an
alternative,
which
is
that
we
allow
for
fleshed
out
proposals
along
lines,
a
b
and
c
at
the
same
time
that
might
address
some
of
the
key
aspects
like
accounting
capability
participation
and
allow
those
two
to
to
to
mature.
So,
for
instance,
if
mike
you
wanted
to
mature
your
proposal
or
if
martin,
you
wanted
to
mature
a
proposal
that
looks
at
a
working
group
or
standing
proposals,
and
I'm
just
naming
people
who
have
have
taken
various
positions.
A
D
I
I
don't
think
we're
I
I
think
we
we,
we
don't
have
a
good
answer.
I
think
we,
as
you
said,
we
should
work
on
this
and
try
and
come
up
with
a
way
of
determining
cut,
cutting
down
the
number
of
options
and
and
and
and
and
moving
forward.
I
mean
you
know,
we
don't
know
the
answer,
is
we
don't
know
so
we'll
just
keep
going.
A
Let's
open
the
floor,
though,
then
perhaps
for
for
ways
to
take
the
discussion
forward
right
the
right
now,
it
seems
to
me
people
find
if
you,
if
you
thought
this
was
premature
and
you
were
the
ones
who
hummed
in
the
forte
category.
A
Maybe
you
could
talk
about
how
you
would
like
to
get
to
a
decision
point
right.
The
the
chairs
would
would
love
you
know
what
we're
going
to
do
after
all
of
this
is
brian,
and
I,
and
you
know,
maybe
our
iab
advisors
will
will
reconnoiter
and
try
and
try
and
find
ways
forward.
But
now
is
a
good
time.
We
have
the
time
if
people
would
like
to
contribute
their
thought
thoughts.
You
you
you've
done
that
you're
not
ready
for
this
answer.
So
what
would
lead
us
in
that
general
direction?
D
L
D
A
Okay,
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
just
clarify
a
little
bit
more
because
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
what
the
chair's
role
here
is
going.
How
do
we?
How
do
we
drive
the
discussion
based
on
this
road?
So
say
it?
You
say
you'd
like
to
understand
the
scope.
Do
you
want
to
have
a
scope
discussion
about
the
program,
the
role
the
you
know,
the
the
role
of
a
per
the
of
the
rsc,
the
role
of
the
a
committee
or
working
group
say
a
few
more
words
about.
A
A
R
Hi,
so
I
think
martin
said
something
very
similar
to
what
I
was
going
to
say.
I
think
part
of
my
concern
here
is:
we
seem
to
be
trying
to
define
solutions
before
we
have
a
consensus
understanding
of
what
is
the
problem
we're
trying
to
solve.
D
M
Hi,
sorry,
we
have
a
we've,
got
work
examples
of
basically
one
expert
sort
of
driving
and
managing
the
process
of
evolution.
The
anything
anything
that
changes
that
model
is
gonna
have
to.
Basically
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
how
to
pay
for
it
and
manage
it
in
in
some
way,
shape
or
form.
M
So
with
respect
to
requirements
generally,
how
I
I
don't
actually
know
how
you
get
to
the
point
of
nailing
down
the
requirements
because,
for
example,
we
already
have
we
have
a
brand
new
requirement
that
seems
to
have
popped
up
in
the
last.
You
know
four
days
or
five
days
related
to
language.
I
don't
know
if
that's
part
of
the
rse
process,
but
that
is
something
that
is
going
to
probably
need
to
be
managed
for
our
documents
at
some
point.
So.
A
M
All
right-
well,
I
I
mentioned
before
that
way
back
when
that
we
get
into
this
sort
of
consensus
paralysis,
process
and
with
respect
to
strategy,
sometimes
having
one
person
who
has
the,
if
you
will
veto
or
the
power
to
just
push
gets
us
gets
us
forward,
and
sometimes
that's
a
strong
chair
for
working
group.
Sometimes
in
this
particular
case,
it's
the
rrc
that
we
hire
and
we
give
that
in
premature
too,
with
respect
to
how
we
do
this
is
we
need
to
look
at?
M
Are
there
places
where
we're
going
to
end
up
with
this,
this
road
log
jam
or
road
block?
And
how
do
we
get
past
it?
And
I
don't
know
how
to
do
that
without
basically
sort
of
saying
yeah
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
hire
someone
who
is
who
has
the
the
the
dynamite
to
break
the
log
jam?
H
Sort
of
echo
I
thought
I
heard
martin
and
colin
saying
I'd
like
to
understand
like
what
actual
substantive
problems
we
think
we'll
need
to
solve
in
the
next
five
years.
Now
that
won't
be
a
complete
list,
but
it'll
be
a
partial
list
and
at
the
end,
if
it's
the
middle
set
well,
that
would
be
very
interesting
because
I
think
that
would
help
us
understand
what
kind
of
structure
is
required
to
solve
those
problems.
D
D
J
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
less
comfortable
with
the
idea
of
treating
this
as
a
requirements.
Analysis
because
I
think
it's
not
necessarily
possible
to
identify
such
requirements
or
a
first
strategy
for
something
as
nebulous
as
the
rfc
series
ahead
of
time,
which
I
think
is
is
likely
to
biases
towards
ending
up
with
something
close
to
the
null
set,
which
then
goes
to
the
set
of
people
who
have
the
position.
We
don't
really
need
an
rfc,
so
I
I'm
not
sure
that
saying
the
right
next
thing.
That'll
determine
where
to
go.
Is
a
requirements.
D
What
happened
if
I
knocked
you
out,
larry,
I
didn't
mean
to
there.
We
go.
K
Is
that
better
yep,
good
yeah?
I
just
wanted
to
control
it,
but
thinking
seems
like
we've
been
thinking
about
the
problem
from
the
top
down
thinking
about
it
from
the
bottom
up,
one
of
the
things
that
the
rsa,
the
rc
in
the
past
has
done
for
each
of
those
how
much
work,
what
kind
of
skills
does
it
require?
K
A
K
Well,
in
particular,
one
of
the
tasks
involved,
not
just
in
general,
but
you
know,
editing,
rfcs,
applying
language,
managing
the
xml
transition
and
what?
What
are?
What
are
all
of
the
things
that
you
really
expect
out
of
the
rsc
before
you
can
figure
out
whether
or
not
you
need
a
committee
or
you,
somebody
else
could
do
the
job
or
other
things
about
it,
just
to
break
down
the
work.
A
Okay,
so
thank
you,
first
of
all,
if
if
you
look
at
the
screen,
if
I
didn't
capture
what
you
thought
you
said
in
a
succinct
form,
please
take
the
floor
now
and
and
correct
me,
so
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
want
to
mistake
anybody
in
any
way.
So
if
I
have
this
wrong
now,
it's
the
time
to
say
something.
Otherwise,
yes,
stephen,
please
go
on.
A
J
I
kind
of
think
people
know
what
they
want
as
outcomes
here
and,
what's
not
clear,
is
how
you
get
them
to
agree
on
some
something:
that's
not
exactly
what
they
started
with.
O
O
I
believe
there's
a
group
driving
hard
here
towards
a
no
rsc
solution
and
there's
another
group
who
think
there
needs
to
be
some
tweaks
made
the
current
rsc
model
and
I
think
the
way
you're
currently
driving
this.
The
null
set
is
a
likely
outcome,
as
steven
said,
and
that
would
be
an
unsatisfactory
outcome,
at
least
for
me.
Thank
you.
A
A
First
of
all,
two
points:
point
number
one
is
the:
we
have
two
iab
advisors
they're
listed
on
the
program
and
they
do
not
have
a
decisional
role.
We
just
use
them
to
balance
ideas
back
and
forth,
and
that's
it
right.
They
they
would.
They
have
never
told
us
to
do
anything
right
and
and
they're
both
on
the
call-
and
you
can
confirm
this
with
them-
and
you
know
these
people
well.
A
Second,
we,
the
chairs,
are,
are
not
actually
we
haven't
picked
a
direction.
We,
we
did
not
really
anticipate
that
people
would
be
unhappy
with
even
holding
the
hum.
So
this
is
not
a
an
area
that
we
expected.
So
there's
no
bias
on
our
part,
in
terms
of
which
which
mechanism
we
would
prefer
and
the
we
are
mindful
of
stephen's
point
and
your
point
we're
also
mindful
of
the
comments
that
that
everybody
else
made
we
just
haven't.
A
You
know,
obviously
we're
not
in
a
position
to
process
them
on
the
spot
and
make
you
know,
make
recommendations
to
the
group
as
to
how
best
to
proceed.
That's
why
we're
taking
point
brian?
Do
you
want
to
add
any
anything
to
that.
D
No,
I
I
mean
we're
clearly
we're
all
flailing
a
little
bit,
but
that's
kind
of
the
nature
of
the
game.
It's
not
particularly
surprising
that
we're
still
flailing
a
bit
and
I've
heard
several
good
suggestions
for
how
to
move
forward,
and
you
know
I
we're
we're
writing
down
all
our
notes
here
and
we'll
figure
out
what
what
what
we
think
we
ought
to
do
as
chairs.
Of
course,
the
mailing
list
is
very
active
and
should
remain
active
as
we,
you
all,
contribute
your
ideas.
Bob.
You
wanted
to
talk.
N
Yes,
thank
you.
So
I
mean
this.
N
This
feels
to
me,
like
seconds
system
syndrome,
trying
to
look
at
everything
and
do
everything
we
never
did
and
those
usually
fail,
I'm
confused
as
to
why
we
aren't
looking
at
the
current
practice.
You
know
it's
defined
in
a
bunch
of
rfcs
and
see
what
incremental
changes
we
want
to
make
or
what
issues
there
are.
That
might
be
a
lot
more
productive
than
just
trying
to
ask
all
of
these
basic
questions,
because
it
to
my
just
stepping
back
a
bit
to
my
take.
N
Is
that
the
reason
we're
doing
this
is
because
we
had
a
problem
with
the
the
way
the
iab
was
running,
the
rsoc
we
weren't
having
a
problem
with
the
rfc
series.
As
far
as
I
can
tell,
and
so
another
way
of
doing
this
is
let's
just
look
at
the
current
current
practice
and
figure
out
what
you
know
think
about
this
as
abyss
and
what
changes
do
we
want
to
make
you
know,
and
we
do
need
to
take
into
account
that
it
is
a
running
system.
We
can't
just
we're
not
starting
from
you
know.
M
I
think
actually
lucy
hit
it
right
on
the
on
the
head
that
one
of
the
things
that
this
discussion
is
actually
doing
is
the
we
still
need
an
rsc
versus
no.
Our
an
rse
is
not
in
our
future
set
of
discussions,
so
perhaps
going
with
what's
bob's
talking
about,
I
I
actually
agree
with
his
approach.
M
M
A
Okay,
thanks
thanks
mike,
I
think
I'm
just
going
to
say
that
your
plus
wanting
my
ellucian
bob
is
that.
M
Fair,
you
didn't
actually
count
you
didn't
actually
put
in
what
lucy
said,
which
was
that
we're
having
a
discussion
about
having
an
rrc
or
not
having
an
rrc
and
that
bob's
to
suggest
bob
on
the
rc
side
is
saying
what
are
the
incremental
changes
we
need
to
make
and
on
the
other
side,
it's
what
what's
the
model
without
an
rse?
And
that's
that's
the
detail
that
we
would
need
to
actually
have
that
real
discussion.
M
A
Because
I
think
so
so
I
think
actually
you
first
of
all,
thank
you
for
your
comment
and
I
think
I'm
hearing
actually
a
a
a
that's,
a
very
sort
of
binary
view
which
we
like
binary
in
this
world
right.
You
know
because
we
know
how
to
you
know
how
to
handle
binary.
A
We
can
take
two
directions
right.
We
can
say:
okay,
if
we're
going
with
an
rsc,
then
we
do
some
incremental.
We
get
an
incremental
proposal
based
on
what
we
think
would
correct
what
we
think
went
wrong
as
one
one
direction
versus
what
I
hear
from
a
few
others
right
which
is
well.
This
is
an
opportunity
really
to
do
away
with
the
rsc.
A
So
now
the
that
opportunity,
if
you
will,
is
to
flesh
out
you,
know
the
what
the
world
would
look
like
if
I'm,
if
I'm
restating
your
your
position
correctly
here,
is
a
cheerful
problem
that
that
I
foresee
happening
and
we'll
have,
I
think,
as
a
group
we're
going
to
have
to
be
mindful
that
if
we,
the
chairs,
could
say,
go
forward
and
let's
develop
both
of
those
approaches
right,
let's
see
what
they
would
both
look
like
and
maybe
compare
and
contrast
them,
and
we
can
do
that
and
I
think
it
might
be
a
useful
exercise.
A
The
concern
that
I
I
have
that
may
come
to
fruition
in
a
really
bad
way
is
that
we,
we
still
are
not
able
to
to
to
find
consensus
points,
and
maybe
we
should
just
be
brave
and
allow
that
possibility
right
so
just
and
which,
by
the
way,
is,
is
something
that
that
happens
from
time
to
time,
and
so
one
of
the
things
we
can
do
is
allow
for
the
both
of
those
ways
to
go
forward.
Richard.
E
People
accidentally
getting
in
the
queue
here
accidentally
setting
both
media
streams
and
they
didn't
intend
to.
I
was
just
going
to
suggest
that
a
lot
of
the
confusion
here
seems
to
be
around
exactly
what
problem
we're
solving
here.
So
much,
though,
I'm
usually
loath
to
write
problem
statement
traps.
This
actually
seems
like
one
where
getting
down
getting
written
down.
E
Some
of
the
the
issues
that
people
have
with
the
current
pro
current
program
could
be
useful
in
terms
of
focusing
discussion
kind
of
like
what
bob
suggested,
because
I
think
that
will
point
toward
you
know
what
the
changes
are
that
are
necessary.
A
So,
what's
interesting
about
that
right
is.
We
did
spend
the
first
couple
of
months
of
this
program
talking
about
that.
What
I
didn't,
what
I
don't
think
we
we
got.
What
we
ended
up
with
was,
I
think,
very
diverse
perspectives
about
what
people
would
you
know
think
needs
to
do.
We
have
an
essentially
requirements,
focused
effort
along
the
the
martin
mark
view,
heck
martin
mark
as
a
couple
of
people
along
those
views
versus
sort
of
a
more
narrow,
a
more
tailored
or
or
evolutionary
view
from
from
some
other
people
richard.
E
I'm
a
big
fan
of
pain,
oriented
engineering,
you
know:
where
are
we
feeling
pain
and
how
can
we
fix
it?
So
I
I
think,
maybe
I'm
more
on
that
kind
of
ecker
martin
sort
of
train.
I
think
you
know
there.
There
are
ideals
that
one
might
try
and
live
up
on,
and
there
are
things
that
are
caught
are
concretely
causing
problems
for
the
organization
that
are
reducing
participation
that
are
wasting
people's
time.
So
I
think
getting
especially
those
things
written
down,
especially
those
pain
points
like
that.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
we're
coming
we're
actually
going
to
be
coming
down
on
to
the
wire
in
terms
of
time.
A
Does
anybody
else
want
to
contribute
on
the
the
other
names
to
this
list
in
one
way
or
the
other,
in
terms
of
how
how
next
to
proceed?
Because
we're
gonna
the
chairs
do
need
to
reconnoiter
a
little
bit
and
come
up
because
I
I
do
there's
another
question
that
I
want
to
ask
after
this
under
the
any
other
business
category,
any
other
comments
or
or
thoughts
on
these.
Before
going
once
lucy
go
ahead.
A
O
A
S
S
Oh
we've
got
these
archival
make
it
available
in
a
thousand
years
time
criteria
you
absolutely
must
meet
and
so
on,
and
so
what
tends
I
see
happening
is
a
whole
load
of
really
absurd
requirements
being
thrown
down,
and
then
people
saying
oh,
we
don't
know
how
to
solve
them.
So
we
must
have
an
expert
and
then
somebody
raising
their
hand,
saying
well
I'm
an
expert
and
then
taking
control
of
everything.
S
S
You
know
the
very
few
of
us
who
are
actually
people
who
spend
their
time,
thinking
about
archive
and
document
series
and
publishing
and
all
that
stuff,
and
so
we
don't
think
of
ourselves
as
experts,
but
if
we
just
shuffle
it
off
saying
well,
that's
hard.
We
end
up
with
nothing
or
worse.
We
end
up
with
a
process
that
has
a
block
in
it
that
you
can't
ever
progress
from
because
well
we're
not
expert.
A
A
All
right
I'll
take
your
comment
as
a
comment
then,
at
this
point
all
right.
I
think
our
next
steps
are
for
the
chairs
to
to
look
at
this
information.
Obviously
we
should
take
this
to
the
list.
It's
for
discussion.
A
I
think
the
chairs
might
be
able
to
organize
the
what
we
have
on
the
screen
here,
a
little
bit
more
into
into
several
different
paths
as
I
discussed,
and
then
what
what
I
think
we'll
do
is
we'll
communicate
back
onto
the
list
on
that
brian.
Do
you
want
to
add
anything
there.
D
A
Right
so
there
is
one
more
then
then
we
had
one
question
which
I
think
also
we
need
to
put
off,
so
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
skip
forward
as
you
can
see
or
skip
backwards
right.
So
we
had
this
question
we're
going
to
put
that
off
for
the
moment.
I
think,
because
I
think
this
stuff
needs
to
be
resolved
first
and
in
terms
of
how
people
are
thinking
and
then
we
also
said
we're
going
to
ask
for
a
doc
editor.
A
I
think
we
need
to
put
that
off
just
a
little
while
too,
until
we
understand
what's
going
on
here,
we
might
need
several
doc
editors
and
they
need
we
might
want
them
to
self-organize.
This
is
a
discussion
we'll
continue
on
the
list.
I
think
there's
another
question
which
is
more
logistical.
A
It
seems
to
me
that
this
group
would
work
better
if
we
could
establish
a
tempo
of
of
virtual
discussions.
Do
people
agree
or
disagree
on
that
point.
I
mean
people
want
to
comment,
because
the
chairs
are
more
than
happy
to
schedule
some
time
virtually
so
that
people
can
hash
things
out
as
they're
making
progress.
These
can
be
interim
points
of
discussion.
A
It
doesn't
have
to
be
like
we're
always
going
to
be
deciding
every
the
most
important
thing
at
every
meeting
would
would
people
like
us
would
people
like
the
chairs
to
work
on
making
sure
we
have
some
time
scheduled
and
we
will
continue
the
rotation
of
pain
if
you
will,
if
we
do
that,
otherwise
absent
that
we
will
wait
until
there's
more
demand
on
or
we
perceive
more
demand
for
the
meetings
on
the
list,
but
now's
an
opportunity
to
say
yeah
go
make
sure
we
get
some
time
scheduled
comments.
D
There's
a
comment
on
the
list.
That,
basically,
is
we
me
and
assume
too
much
to
have
a
a
useful
meeting.
D
A
Okay,
then
we
will,
for
the
moment
not
schedule
the
time.
Just
that
we're
clear
the
chairs
will
we'll
review
all
of
this
we'll
try
and
come
up
with
a
couple
of
ways
forward
and
bring
them
back
to
the
list
any
other.
So
I
think
we're
at
the
any
other
business
point
of
the
discussion.
A
Okay,
then,
thank
you
for
your
participation.
We
will
be
back
to
you
on
the
list
and
thank
you
braun
for
for
taking
meetings
for
taking
minutes
rather
and
we'll
see
you
on
the
list.