On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Robert Elz wrote:
From: James M Galvin <galvin(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>
| Robert, it has never worked this way while I've been Chair. Neither
| POISSON nor any working group gets to do what it wants to do when it
| wants to do it. All topics have always needed IESG approval.
From where exactly do you draw this conclusion. I have just reviewed
rfc2418 (bcp25), and I can find nothing that says that. It certainly isn't
in 2026.
The IESG needs to agree to the charter, that's clear, and the AD needs to
agree to any milestone updates, etc - but for work that falls within the
charter, the WG decides just what it wants to do.
If you, and other WG chairs, are running to the ADs every time someone
raises new topic, then no wonder the IESG are way over worked - it should
be for the WG chair to decide whether something is within the charter or
not - if it is, then fine, it gets discussed.
That is certainly one interpretation of what I said. Let me provide a
less cynical interpretation and try to be more clear about what I meant.
The poised mailing list has always served a dual function: it is the
mailing list for the POISSON working group and an open forum for
discussing process issues. The POISSON working group has in its charter
to address process issues.
My interpretation of that charter (which I'll boldly proclaim is a
shared interpretation by the General AD and my co-Chair) is that when an
issue is discussed that clearly falls within the purview of POISSON we
still need approval to promote that issue to a work item of the working
group. We have worked together with the IESG to decide if the issue is
to be addressed.
You see, it is not within the purview of POISSON to decide by itself,
without approval from the IESG, that any process related document is
fair game to be opened, reviewed, and revised whenever POISSON decides
it should be done. I can not imagine where you got any expectation at
all that that was how things worked. I can not think of a single analog
of such a procedure in any organization anywhere. That is not to say
that organizations to not have a way to revise their processes, but
there are checks and balances. The decision does not come from one side
of the issue.
In principle this is precisely the process of updating the charter to
indicate the actual work item. Admittedly the co-chairs of POISSON have
not been good at keeping the charter precisely up-to-date. (But then we
are hardly exception as far as this is concerned. :-)
Whenever it has been decided that the working group will not move
forward with a particular issue this has always been noted on the
mailing list. Nothing -- to the best of my recollection -- that has
ever come up on the poised mailing list has ever been ignored.
At no time was discussion ever cut off on a relevant issue. Taking on
an issue as a work item has been cut-off. From my perspective and in my
experience this is due process.
Anything that falls in any of those categories is valid for discussion
without anyone asking the IESG if it is to be allowed.
Let's be clear about what's on the table. Discussion has *never* been
stifled on relevant issues, until it has been decided that it is not a
POISSON work item. A POISSON work item is different than a poised
mailing list discussion. Please make a note of that.
You are free to interpret the POISSON charter has being especially
open-ended. I'm simply going to point out that it has not worked that
way, as described above (speaking as co-Chair of POISSON).
Jim
--
James M. Galvin <galvin(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>
co-Chair of POISSON but speaking for myself