OK, I think the wiki is now fixed (thanks as always to Andrew Grimberg's prompt and expert responses). Rob, can you try to upload the Layered API proposal again? Phil.

Thanks Phil. --dmm

The proposal was waiting on moderator approval this morning and I released it to both Discuss and TSC lists a little while ago. The wiki issue seems to be a bug I'm working on right now. The file

Actually, now I see you only sent your proposal to tsc@ (unless I can't keep track of what is cross posted where, which has non-zero probability). Any reason why it can't go to discuss? --dmm

BTW, I updated the agenda to give you a slot; I'm thinking now I'm going to push everything else off so we can discuss moving forward. Also, thank you for posting your pdf to the discuss list (as you

Yea, I'm online now this morning and I'll get all of this moving guys. Phil.

Sure. Let me work on the agenda this AM. --dmm

Rob, I see that you tried to add a pdf to the "layered API proposal" that didn't make it (looks like size limitations). Can you work with Phil to get this posted? Thnx, --dmm

On May 9, 2013, at 8:43 AM, "Rob Sherwood" <rob.sherwood@...> wrote: I'd second that request. lets spend as much time on this as we need to discuss today. Tom

[resending without attachment -- can we please bump up the attachment file limit to something reasonable?] After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal, we ran into a

After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal, we ran into a bunch of concerns. Attached is a proposal which we believe addresses those concerns while trying to keep to

In the interest of making progress towards shaping our contribution for ODP, we are also proceeding to develop code with DE proposal as the working assumption. -abhishek

Hi all, Apologies if I've been slow to reply, but it's been because I've been heads down reading code and meeting with our top engineers discussing the proposal. Colin and Dave have done a great job

Folks, The Dixon-Erickson (DE) proposal has been built from the ground up looking at the various pros and cons of the two controller bases. I believe its unbiased, has solid technical merit, its open

We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson proposal because it makes most sense to us. I'd like to move forward with this as soon as

I feel a bit sheepish after you saying "to be crystal clear" in the first sentence, but I'm still a bit confused. Are you saying that you agree with (1) the proposal that Dave Erickson and I put

A few have pinged me asking me to be crystal clear about what I said, so here goes: I personally have been following the discussions and presentations on the merge question and believe the proposal on

Thanks for clarifying my point. *) Adding discuss list too. --Tom From: Abhishek Chauhan <Abhishek.Chauhan@...> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:22 PM To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@...>, Rob Sherwood

* David Meyer (dmm@...) wrote: Yes, I did make that suggestion, in the context of hackfest II being in 2wks. With new dates, I think we'd be better served exectuing against a developing plan

I should have employed more precision below. To be clear – I agree with Tom, that we should keep the current pace on the controller unification efforts, and not couple it with the hackfest.