ATOCA minutes

There was some discussion on closing the working group.

There was consensus that there wasn't enough energy to continue with the working group.

The chairs took actions to write a summary of the working group status to the list.

The area director took an action to close the working group.



Raw notes follow (thanks very much to Ben Campbell)...

 Atoca minutes

-- Zombies!

-- Reading of the New Note Well by Murray

-- ATPCA R.I.P 1622-1703

Chairs have decided to close the working group in spite of some old pictures of Richard. Discussion ensued.

Resolution: Robert will send message to close group. Chairs will publish reasons. Mailing list to stay open.




Detailed discussion follows:
------

Brian Rosen:  Objects. Objection interrupted by AV difficulties and Ferris Bueller "it's over, go home" vid. There's a significant need for this work. People are trying to build systems beyond the current ones, and need help. No one else is doing it. This is the right place to do it.

We need the people who want this to participate. The implementers want to deploy something, not do standards work. Might participate if there's well defined goals. Currently use daemon dialers.

Mary Barnes: Not sure if we queried for participants at beginning [this is pre-dispatch]. If we don't have participants?

Keith: Mailing list remaining open. Working group not generating sufficient discussion. Can still do individual documents. If people come up with a better charter, they can discuss on list as well.

Henning: There's still an issue, but the world has moved on. ATOCA use cases had an overly narrow view of problem space. Described some less time-urgent (i.e. not "run now!") use cases that are still part of the wider problem. Lots of existing methods. Unless we can account for those, we won't succeed.

Richard: Henning's comments are scoped to the US (e.g. CMAS).

Martin: Agreed with Henning.

Brian: Landscape hasn't changed in a way that changes the original idea. Proposal is to close, not recharter with new scope. Still lots of work needs to be done, and expertise is here. Will do as individuals if necessary.

(unknown speaker): CMAS is US, but there are similar things elsewhere.

Richard: Closing a wg is painful, acknowledgement of error. Take that negative energy and channel into people who have interest to do individual work. Can we leave vestige to make reconstitution easier if we come back?

Martin: Rehydration is hard (c.v rtcweb). Reactivation requires clear identification of work, participants, etc. Was demonstrated at beginning but it was superficial.

(unkown): Keeping the mailing list will make individual work easier.

Mary: No one doing the work.

Richard: wrote 4 docs, insufficient review

Robert: Reconstitution not hard if we see sufficient interest where a wg looks like the right approach. New BoF probably not needed.

Bernard: When wg close, it's sometimes not clear why it happened years in the future. Can the reason go on record.

** action item: Chairs to record and publish reasons for group closure.