On 10:42 20/08/2005, Henrik Levkowetz said:
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,
>>
[snip]
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.
Dear Henrik,
Unfortunately, there would be no lawyers nor tax consultants if there
was not often a possible broad difference between the author's intent
and the way his texts are used.
In transferring write-ups responsibility from the AD to the Chair,
you necessarily change something (I evaluate from experience as an
increase of the importance of the opinion of the Chair - but you can
dispute that). The usual solution when changing something while
wanting to retain status-quo is to balance the change. I feel that
copying his constituents (the WG) is necessary (not a simple courtesy
some may do). This way transparency is maintained an WG level. The
Chair belongs to the WG not to the IESG.
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.
The questionnaire should summarise all what the IESG wants to know. I
quote:" The second part of the task is to prepare the "Protocol
Write-Up" which is used both for the ballot write-up for the IESG
telechat and for the the IETF-wide protocol announcement. "
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... )
This is the first part of the task. The second and most important
part is quoted above.
> 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.
I suppose so: this is the first part task (item a/h)
I am interested in what should interest the IESG and the IETF last
call (second part task [item i/k]). I have two concerns:
- does that address the Charter or did they find they had to change
targets which may affect what I do, plan or know?
- is it (future) state of the art, what do they propose which may
help (my) innovation?
My personal take is that any charter violations should have been taken up
with the AD far in advance of the request to publish;
Violation is a big word and probably a seldom case (it would mean
that the WG agreed). Things are much simpler: the purpose of the WG
is to accomplish a task described by its Charter. Easiness or
difficulty for the WG to understand, adhere, fulfill, limit itself to
the Charter, simplicity, complexity, need to change, new suggestions,
etc. in accomplishing the Charter are normal elements of appreciation
of the work of a WG and information for the future.
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.
When you order something there are many many things you do not care
about in details but a lot globally. They are summarised in the
question you ask: "is this what I ordered?". I doubt you will pay if
the vendor just overlook the question. I do not ask for more.
> 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.
Then this is not exactly what your draft describes. What your draft
describes is more than that. Anyway, when you consider the
advancement of a document, what is your reference of this
advancement? I just want this reference (which is the Charter and the
IETF core values [in particular technical inclusiveness]) to be mentioned.
All the best. Thank you for your work.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf