April Marine
2001-01-10 00:38:38 UTC
sorry--thought these were in already...thanks to Walt
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:32:59 -0500
From: Walter Houser <***@cpcug.org>
To: April Marine <***@nominum.com>
Cc: Christopher Burke <***@NAmerica.mot.com>
Subject: Minutes for Web Elucidation of Internet-Related Developments
(weird)
Web Elucidation of Internet-Related Developments (weird)
Chair: Christopher Burke <***@NAmerica.mot.com>
User Services Area Director(s): April Marine <***@nominum.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:ietf-***@imc.org
To Subscribe: ietf-weird-***@imc.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-weird/
Chair for this session: April Marine <***@nominum.com>
Minutes: Walt Houser <***@forum.va.gov>
Chris Burke contacted April to say that he would be unable to make the
meeting. April proposed a one-line agenda: To Be or Not to Be. It was
accepted. Susan Harris and Walt Houser had attended before. The other two
participants were new to the WG.
WEIRD was always an experimental group. What is the scope of the group? It
is intended to explain the IETF to the general public and those who are
considering coming to the IETF for the first time. Should it alert IETFers
to the status of major developments? This would be a difficult task that in
some measure duplicates the role of the trade press. It also requires
considerable effort from knowledgeable authors. For example, instant
messaging is a hot topic that WEIRD could summarize. IM got wedged and split
into three groups. The situation is highly volatile. Before putting a
discussion of this sensitive situation on the IETF web pages, we would need
to consult with the involved parties.
The scope is potentially the entire IETF and its activities. Those new to
the IETF don�t tend to read RFCs, but they will read web pages.
Should we do a use-case analysis to get a better understanding of the
possible audiences for WEIRD web pages? Should we review the emails from the
public?
Finally, should we continue or not? We have an audience and a medium, but
not content. Should we have a standing WG to cover IETF activities? Firms
and organizations are willing to send people to produce standards and
protocols in order to make or buy products. But they are less likely to pay
for online news summaries.
Other WEIRD like activities we could pursue:
� IETF FAQ?
� Funny RFCs.
� BOF Overviews.
� Help mail list to answer general questions about the IETF.
We concluded we could put this work into USWG, as WEIRD does not have the
momentum. We reached the consensus that WEIRD should be shut down.
Thanks, Walt Houser
Implementing Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
http://www.cpcug.org/user/houser/section508/index.html
CPCUG Training Calendar at http://cpcug.org/user/houser/calendar/calendar.pl
Teach yourself cool web stuff at http://cpcug.org/user/houser/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:32:59 -0500
From: Walter Houser <***@cpcug.org>
To: April Marine <***@nominum.com>
Cc: Christopher Burke <***@NAmerica.mot.com>
Subject: Minutes for Web Elucidation of Internet-Related Developments
(weird)
Web Elucidation of Internet-Related Developments (weird)
Chair: Christopher Burke <***@NAmerica.mot.com>
User Services Area Director(s): April Marine <***@nominum.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:ietf-***@imc.org
To Subscribe: ietf-weird-***@imc.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-weird/
Chair for this session: April Marine <***@nominum.com>
Minutes: Walt Houser <***@forum.va.gov>
Chris Burke contacted April to say that he would be unable to make the
meeting. April proposed a one-line agenda: To Be or Not to Be. It was
accepted. Susan Harris and Walt Houser had attended before. The other two
participants were new to the WG.
WEIRD was always an experimental group. What is the scope of the group? It
is intended to explain the IETF to the general public and those who are
considering coming to the IETF for the first time. Should it alert IETFers
to the status of major developments? This would be a difficult task that in
some measure duplicates the role of the trade press. It also requires
considerable effort from knowledgeable authors. For example, instant
messaging is a hot topic that WEIRD could summarize. IM got wedged and split
into three groups. The situation is highly volatile. Before putting a
discussion of this sensitive situation on the IETF web pages, we would need
to consult with the involved parties.
The scope is potentially the entire IETF and its activities. Those new to
the IETF don�t tend to read RFCs, but they will read web pages.
Should we do a use-case analysis to get a better understanding of the
possible audiences for WEIRD web pages? Should we review the emails from the
public?
Finally, should we continue or not? We have an audience and a medium, but
not content. Should we have a standing WG to cover IETF activities? Firms
and organizations are willing to send people to produce standards and
protocols in order to make or buy products. But they are less likely to pay
for online news summaries.
Other WEIRD like activities we could pursue:
� IETF FAQ?
� Funny RFCs.
� BOF Overviews.
� Help mail list to answer general questions about the IETF.
We concluded we could put this work into USWG, as WEIRD does not have the
momentum. We reached the consensus that WEIRD should be shut down.
Thanks, Walt Houser
Implementing Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
http://www.cpcug.org/user/houser/section508/index.html
CPCUG Training Calendar at http://cpcug.org/user/houser/calendar/calendar.pl
Teach yourself cool web stuff at http://cpcug.org/user/houser/