Margaret, Pete,
As much value as it has, I totally agree with the two previous speakers. I
don't currently see any benefit of putting the IESG charter document forward as
output of the community, but as communication from IESG to the community. I
believe that the problem-statement WG and the community as a whole should
review and then conclude what the actual charter should be.
Cheers,
Jonne.
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:21 PM
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: A charter for the IESG
On 3/8/03 at 5:22 PM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I think that there could be considerable value in publishing
a document
that explains what the IESG believes its charter to be (#1
above). Among
other things, this could serve as a useful baseline for any
changes that
the community decides to make as a result of the
problem-statement effort.
But, I would prefer to see such a document published as an
Info RFC, with
wording that would discourage misinterpretation of the document as a
community mandate.
I agree wholeheartedly with Margaret, with regard to both the value
of such a document and the form it should take. I believe it would be
incredibly useful to the problem-statement group, especially since it
has been said that some of the items in the problem-statement draft
do not reflect the reality of how the IESG operates. It would be good
to actually see how the IESG views its operations. I also think that
an Informational RFC is exactly what is called for; a BCP would
require IETF consensus and would inappropriately compete with the
problem-statement work.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax:
(858)651-1102