[CRISP-TEAM] Timeline, and incorporating Bill's edits submission

Paul Rendek rendek at ripe.net
Wed Jan 14 13:39:54 CET 2015

Hey ,

I agree, I like the work Bill has done. I wonder if we can turn the tap
on with the latest version. But I would like to see the version control
turned on when he does his magic.

I agree, we can hash this out on the call.


On 1/14/15 12:13 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Thank you Alan for explicitly bring this up. It's an important point to
> cover. What you proposed makese sense to me generally and would like to
> understand whether an extra step needs to be added in the timeline to
> incorporate Bill's suggestion.
> If this is the case, then we need to  shortern the time for each phase.
> I also would like to confirm with Bill whether he is willing to do this
> again for the udated draft as I understand it has taken quite some time
> for Bill with many places to update, while not intended to be
> substantive changes.
> If it could be done without confusion, an alternativeI can think of is
> to have redline of Michael and Bill's vesions, review within the CRISP
> Team and incorporate the changes unless disagreed.
> Let's discuss at the coming call what works the best without confusion
> in pragematic way.
> Izumi
> On 2015/01/14 20:17, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>> I would like to have your feedback on a draft timeline of our work 
>>> before we submit the final proposal to the ICG.
>> How will we incorporate Bill's copy-editing work?  My proposal follows.
>> I would hope that we can agree on all substantive changes during the 
>> call today, and then perhaps Michael can produce a document that 
>> includes all those changes, and share it with all of us.
>> Next, I hope that Bill can update his copy-edited document to include 
>> all the recent changes made to Michael's document, and share that with us.
>> Finally, I hope that we can review Bill's document and approve the final 
>> version at tomorrow's meeting.
>> Let me try to explain that again, with the aid of this diagram (please 
>> view in a fixed-width font):
>> ]  A: Second draft, published on 9 Jan 2015
>> ]          :
>> ]          :
>> ]  B: CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft 12012015-mraredline.docx
>> ]     prepared by Michael, with changes from several people
>> ]          :                                  :
>> ]          :                                  :
>> ]          :               C: CRISP Team Proposal-BW3.doc
>> ]          :                  with Bill's copy-editing changes
>> ]          :                                  :
>> ]  D: current work in progress,               :
>> ]     being collected by Michael              :
>> ]          :                                  :
>> ]          :                                  :
>> ]  E: New draft to be produced by Michael     :
>> ]     soon after the call on Wed 14 Jan 2015  :
>> ]          :                                  :
>> ]          :                ..................
>> ]          :               :
>> ]  F: New draft to be produced (by who?)
>> ]     incorporating both the agreed changes from B->D->E
>> ]     and the copy-editing changes from B->C
>> ]          :
>> ]          :
>> ]  G: Final version to be sent to ICG
>> Between Monday's call and Tuesday's call, Alan Barrett, Michael 
>> Abejuela, and Bill Wodcock, worked on incorporating suggestions from 
>> several people, and copy-editing.  Bill did most of the copy-editing.  
>> The results were two documents, labeled "B" and "C" above.  "B" includes 
>> edits performed by Alan Barrett and Michael Abejuela, incoprorating 
>> suggestions from several sources. Document "C" was based on "B", and 
>> includes edits by Bill Woodcock.
>> Most of the changes from "B" to "C" were Bill's copy-editing. Some 
>> changes might have been in response to suggestions from others (I am not 
>> sure).
>> During yesterday's call, people were uncomfortable adopting the document 
>> produced by Bill (labeled "C" above), so I suggested going back to the 
>> document labeled "B" above, which incorporates editorial changes from 
>> many people, and substantive changes from Paul Wilson.
>> Over the past 20 hours or so, we have been discussing changes relative 
>> to document "B", so we are at the point labeled "D" in my diagram.
>> I hope that we can produce document "E" soon after the call today 
>> (Wednesday 14 Jan).
>> I do not want to lose the changes that Bill made between "B" and "C", so 
>> I think we should produce a new document "F" that includes all the 
>> changes from B to D to E (being collected by Michael, and to be approved 
>> at or soon after today's call), and all the changes from B to C 
>> (copy-editing by Bill), plus whatever small changes are necessary to 
>> resolve conflicts between the two lines of edits.
>> I hope that we can approve document "F" during tomorrow's call (Thu 15 
>> Jan), and make minimal changes after tomorrow's call before sending the 
>> final version "G" to the ICG.
>> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list