Request for consideration of AX 2.0 Working Group Charter Proposal

[Martin Atkins]

Dick Hardt wrote:
> I'd prefer to narrow the scope of the WG and keep it focussed on a small 
> number of goals.
> 
> A separate WG on SREG would be preferred, but I think it is a disservice 
> to the community to have two specs having such significant overlap.
> Choice in this case leads to confusion and reluctance to invest. The 
> challenge is that those with an investment in SREG now have a propensity 
> to see it continue on even though intellectually they can see the 
> advantage of a unified spec.
> 
> fwiw: I am in an off-site most of this week and won't be able to engage 
> significantly until next week.
> 

I agree that having both is not ideal, but I also feel strongly that we 
need to have a good SREG 1.1 spec because in practice today there are 
lots of SREG implementations and it is important to be able to 
interoperate with them even if in the long term we'd like to move to AX.

This is, incidentally, why I was previously proposing forming an SREG 
group whose task is *only* to fix the spec to reflect current practice. 
This should encourage SREG interop in the short term while new 
developments to AX will encourage a move to AX in the longer term.