ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: is the WG-Charter concept changed?

2005-08-20 01:43:00
On 2005-08-20 10:10 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin said the following:
At 16:13 19/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt


The Draft above seems already to be used in some areas to rule a 
procedure to decrease the AD's working load and to speed up the 
reviewing process. It gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal 
opinion,

No, it does not do that - it moves some procedural responsibility to
the PROTO shepherd, but it doesn't change either the WG Chair's duty
to judge WG consensus or the AD's responsibility to review the draft
for the IESG.

Sorry, Brian - you comment but you do not respond.

1. comment: yes it gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal 
opinion (but this is not a problem if this is consistently organised):

I believe this is not the case; it is certainly not the intention. I
don't see where the document gives grounds for your statement here,
either.  As I don't believe this premise to be valid, your following
conclusions don't hold either:

(1) due to  the load on ADs, this may lead to more delegation of the 
AD to the Shepherding Chair, however the Chair has more time: this is 
no problem if the WG knows the report (AD delegates to Chair who 
writes and can less review, Chair is to delegate part of the 
reviewing to WG). (2) the opinion of the Chair becomes the reference 
in the questionnaire, no more the Charter the Draft overlooks.

The questionnaire summarises some things a chair should already be
considering when requesting publication, it doesn't add any new powers.
It is simply a best common practice for the chair to provide this
information to the AD, as a complement to other information (AD review
and reviews by others, mailing list discussions, issue tracker information,
and more... )

2. question: is the Charter still the reference when reporting to the 
IESG? If no this is a big change in the IETF. If yes, then this must 
translate into the reporting questionnaire. At least in asking the 
way the Charter has been respected in all technical inclusiveness.

There are many implicit assumptions that of course could be made explicit
in the questionnaire - those which are currently there have been found
good, useful and relevant by chairs and ADs.  

My personal take is that any charter violations should have been taken up
with the AD far in advance of the request to publish; on the other hand, 
it wouldn't bother me too much to add such a question to the questionnaire
as long as it doesn't lead to twentyfourteen other implicit assumptions
being added as explicit questions.  That would change this questionnaire
from a useful tool to a useless piece of extra formalism.

You cannot say something is the reference to follow, and not even 
allude to it in the execution reporting questionnaire.

I think your interpretation of this questionnaire as an "execution reporting
questionnaire" is flawed.  This is just a few pieces of information out of
the many which are relevant in considering the advancement of a particular
document, nothing more.


        Henrik

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>