Update

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, 21 May, 2003 11:53 -0400 Melinda Shore 
<mshore at cisco.com> wrote:

> A few notes on where we currently stand:
>
> 1) We're scheduled to have the problem description document
> through WG last call in May.  Obviously that's not going to
> happen, but I think we can get it wrapped up pretty quickly
> if we hunker down a bit.  There haven't been many comments
> on the new version other than a few "well done"s; it would
> be helpful if people who haven't read the new version could
> take a look at it and raise any issues they discover.
>...

Melinda, I think that a large fraction of the notes I've posted 
recently have contained comments of the nature of "this appears 
to be an important problem/issue and it appears to not be 
reflected in the current version of the problem description 
document".  Sometimes, the comments have been even more specific 
than that, pointing out sections in which I would expect the 
issues to be reflected but that don't seem to reflect them.

The most recent of those is the discussion of whether there 
really is a "6+ month spin-up time" on the IESG and whether that 
calls for some radical rethinking of terms of office, structure, 
transition mechanisms and timing, or AD responsibilities.

I suppose I could have tried to write a list of omissions 
against the current document instead, but that just isn't how 
the flow of discussion on the list has been going.  If you need 
that sort of presentation in order to count something as a 
"comment on the new version", it would be really helpful if you, 
as co-chairs, would post --or arrange for someone else to post-- 
reminders that people should explicitly relate discussions to 
the text of the document when those discussions appear to be 
about useful topics but their relationships can't be identified 
easily.

thanks,
     john