John was actually channeling me accurately in his note - and I wanted to
agree that what Jari proposed (when sending charter proposals out for
review) is worth doing, and is almost certainly solving a different problem
than tracking different versions of charters - so please consider what Jari
proposed, no matter what else gets considered...
But I do have an alternate proposal, if its important for the
IETF community to understand the differences and rationales of
charter changes better. Why don't we simply change the
announcement format to include the three parts that I outlined
above? My understanding is that the process is largely manual
from the secretariat's point of view, so all it would take is
for the AD to include three pieces of information instead of
one when requesting a charter review to be sent out. In most
cases this information exists already, its just a matter of
sending it out to the public as well as the IESG.
It think it is important for the community to understand that.
Otherwise, posting charters that are being revised (as distinct
from new ones) is, in general, pretty useless, perhaps even a
demonstration of how easy it is to go through the forms of
community review without making that functional for anyone but
the most determined.
The expanded announcement you suggest would work for me. I
think Spencer and I were focused on a slightly earlier part of
the process, in which multiple drafts were circulating around in
the pre-BOF and immediate post-BOF stages. Those are drafts
that people closely involved with the group in formation need to
see and interact with (and that probably would benefit from
being a little more organized and easier to identify). Once the
time comes for a formal AD announcement of a charter draft to be
reviewed for the community, I think your suggestion would be
more than adequate.
The question of comparing a formally-proposed charter revision
with an existing charter is a somewhat different one. As I
write this, I even suspect that they may be two separate
problems that could be solved in different ways.
Ietf mailing list