Folks,
quick update... Since our request removes a milestone from the current
charter, this nominally requires IESG approval. We've been working
with Ted (who is now bringing this to the IESG), so there shouldn't be
a problem. However, it'll take a little to get this through the process.
For now, we will go forward assuming the change will go through. This
means that we
- first, have to address comments from IESG review of our current
documents,
- once this is done, we'll continue discussion of possible re-charter
(including the rules stuff).
Thanks,
Markus
Markus Hofmann wrote:
Folks,
the deadline for our rules language document was October last year. This
deadline has already been extended a few times. So we need to decide on
how to move on with this document.
Based on earlier discussions on the mailing list about status and work
needed, we checked with Ted (our AD) and discussed the following options:
(1) Produce a minimal draft on "P" now, knowing that it will not
be sufficient and be obsolete if the group gets re-chartered
and if it continues to work on "P".
Pros: We would meet the charter item
Cons: Wastes time (assuming "P" will be in possible re-charter)
(2) Extend the current deadline for another 2-4 months.
(3) Remove this specific work item from our current charter and
put it up for consideration in a possible re-charter.
After discussions with Ted, we believe that choice (3) is the most
sensible, as it allows us to actually to do the work we believe needs
doing, and all this in a realistic time frame. We also won't waste any
time completing a document that won't meet our needs.
As such, we'll send a request to our AD and to the secretariat to remove
the OPES rules language from our current charter and include it in
discussions for a re-charter.
Any strong objections?
Thanks,
Markus