Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
I'm generally comfortable with this charter, but not really with this.
"necessary for the success of the specifications" seems like a very
high bar to clear. While I appreciate that there's a desire by many members
of the WG to avoid making incompatible changes (hence this language),
to the extent to which that desire reflects consensus, those
changes won't be made anyway. I don't believe it's appropriate to
rule discussion of changes which might be important but not
"necesssary" out of scope in the charter.
Eric,
The logic of "to the extent to which that desire reflects consensus,
those changes won't be made anyway" leads directly to having no
charter at all.
Not at all. At least one (though not the only) purpose of the charter
is to be a contract with the greater IETF community and to constrain
the WG to do certain things even if those things would otherwise
not meet the bar of consensus.
You are correct that the current wording specifies a high bar. That
is entirely intentional. This is version 3 (or 4, depending how you
count) of this work, with quite a bit of current email using existing
work. (Small number of installations, but some of them are very high
volume.)
Yes, I appreciate that it's intentional. And indeed, communities
very often want things to remain unchanged when they bring them
to IETF. I'm saying that it's not appropriate to nail that down
in the charter.
Further, your objection to the current language appears to be entirely
theoretical, since you are not putting forward any specific work that
you feel is "important" but would not rise to the level of "necessary
for the success of the specifications".
That's not a safe conclusion to draw. It's simply that the
procedure question is what's appropriate during the discussion
of the charter.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org