Scott,
Thanks for you suggestions about directory naming, etc. Your thoughts
are greatly appreciated.
When Underscore took over PWG server administration last summer, we too
were pretty shocked at the mess that existed at that time. We started
to design a new approach based on a documented philosophy for naming,
structuring, etc, but didn't have the time to implement it. (You know,
the things that are done for "free" don't often make it to the top of
the priority list!)
One thing we should do, though, is start formulating a *simple* plan
to improve the current structure, even if only modestly. To that end,
some comments on your proposals:
> Subject: SENSE directory moved on PWG FTP server -Reply
>> How 'bout
>> pwg/ipp
> pwg/sp
> pwg/jmp
> pwg/pmp
> pwg/pwg (for overall PWG issues)
This certainly looks pretty good. I would suggest, though, that we don't
have a "pwg/pwg" directory, as such a naming scheme can get pretty confusing
during correspondence; instead, how about "pwg/general" to refer to the
overall PWG stuff?
Regarding your proposals for common subdirectories under each project:
> internet-drafts
How about just "drafts"? While the PWG sure does do a lot with the IETF,
we shouldn't preclude the idea of having draft documents that are not tied
to the IETF.
> rfcs
How about just plain old "rfc"? That way the TLA texture remains pure
and consistent... ;-)
> new
Oh boy. This looks like a black hole waiting to consume all incoming
documents. We would strongly discourage this approach. Perhaps all
project directories need something like a "misc" for miscellaneous
documents that are not easily placed in other existing categories.
> charter
> minutes
> action-items
These are all quite good. It would be nice, though, to reduce the
"action-items" directory name to a single word, perhaps something
like "action", or whatever.
What do the other PWG folks think about these topics? Does anyone
really care out there?
...jay