Subject: Re: oh no... please... not two lists...?

From: "Weibel,Stu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:23:25 -0400

I guess what I am suggesting is that URN-IETF and [email-masked] have
overlapping objectives and, judging from the traffic, could be conflated.

And yes,  I agree with the other sentiments expressed... need for open
discussion, etc.

stu

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 1:48 PM
To: Weibel,Stu; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: oh no... please... not two lists...?

At 11.35 -0400 1999-06-02, Weibel,Stu wrote:
>The W3C seems exactly the right place for these discussions to be carried
>forward and archived.

Where the mailing list is run doesn't matter at all for the IESG. So,
it is neither better, nor worse to run it at W3C.

Regarding two lists, you might mix up the URN-discussions list and
the URI discussion list. Both lists were hosted at Bunyip, but thy
are still different. They are both belonging (or was regarding the
URI mailing list) to IETF working groups.

   paf

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:35:55 +0200

>overlapping objectives and, judging from the traffic, could be conflated.

As long as the URN working group is active, it is up to the chair of
the WG to see that the discussions on the mailing list of the URN
working group stays focused on the issues specified in the charter,
or at least doesn't delay the work that is supposed to be going on.

So, of the two lists, the URN mailing list is the one which have a
focused charter, and it is up to the chair of the wg to descide how
to handle this.

I agree that what is to be discussed is overlapping between the
lists, but the trouble is if what is NOT supposed to happen in the
URN wg is disturbing the URN specific discussions.

    Patrik
------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Director, Applications Area               Email: [email-masked]
IETF                                             URL: http://paf.se
                                           PGP Key ID: 0xBD236602

    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice,
    but in practice, there is.

---

From: Daniel LaLiberte <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:57:19 -0400

> overlapping objectives and, judging from the traffic, could be conflated.

We are certainly interested in discussing issues of persistence on the
[email-masked] list, but we don't necessarily have the same predisposition
toward the "urn" issue as the people on the urn-ietf list (I'm on both
lists, btw).  I'd like to think that we will be more open minded on the
uri list, although every individual has their own biases.

 > And yes,  I agree with the other sentiments expressed... need for open

In case it is not clear to folks (I know Stu knows), if W3C (including
its members) decide to start a working group with some specific agenda,
then that group, and its own list, will very likely have adopted some
assumptions to constrain its work.  But that should not affect the
openness of the public uri list.

--
Daniel LaLiberte
[email-masked]

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:00:21 -0400

Howdy,

As others have said before me, there are different roles for the
URI and URN mailing lists.  It is the position of the URN WG chair
that a separate list is needed to simply focus on (what little) WG
work is left to do.

Leslie.

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My cat has all the answers.  But she claims     Leslie Daigle
   she doesn't know the questions."              [email-masked]

------------------------------------------------------------------------