Re: is the WG-Charter concept changed?

Hi Jefsey,

At 11:05 AM +0200 8/18/05, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt
I agree with Brian that this procedures does not change the standards 
process and/or the official role of the WG chair.  In fact, the ideas 
in this document were largely adapted from things that WG chairs were 
already doing in some areas or in some groups.  The idea is to ask 
the WG chairs to take more responsibility for the quality of WG 
output, hopefully reducing the number of documents that come to the 
IESG will serious quality issues.
However, I do think it would make sense to consider/discuss your 
specific suggestions:
> 1. The first addition is that the proposed write-ups are presented 
> for quick comments to the WG.
The "ballot write-up" portion of the questionnaire does become 
public, and I suppose that it could be reviewed by the WG.  However, 
I am not sure what benefit that would provide...  Before the PROTO 
questionnaire was in use, ADs would provide the ballot write-ups with 
no input from anyone.  In general, they consist of the abstract of 
the document (perhaps with a bit more text to say why the 
specification is needed), a summary of the WG consensus process and a 
statement about who has reviewed the document in the later stages of 
review/approval.  These statements do not end-up in the RFC or in any 
archival location...
What is your concern about these statements?  And, what do you hope 
that a review will accomplish?
I think that we should be careful about adding any more steps to the 
standards publication process, so I will personally tend to push back 
on any steps that do not, IMO, add significant value.
> 2. two questions more are added, one on the way the Charter has been 
> respected, one on the care given not to favor one technical vision 
> over others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose competition in 
> a WG is not between propositions but for the best user needs support?
Today, we do not have an explicit check that a WG work item that has 
been submitted for publication matches a WG charter milestone or is 
otherwise within the WG charter.  There is an implicit check during 
AD review, perhaps, but not an explicit one.
I would like to see such an explicit check added, so I personally 
agree that it would be a good addition to the PROTO questionnaire for 
the WG chair to state what WG milestone is represented by a 
particular document and/or otherwise explain how the document is 
in-charter for the WG.  I think that we should consider this addition 
if/when the PROTO process is updated.
Others may disagree, of course.

The second portion of your suggestion is, IMO, already represented in 
the questionnaire, as we ask about the WG consensus process, 
contentious issues, other options discussed by the WG and the 
strength of WG consensus on the document.  It is the role of the WG 
chair to determine WG consensus, and the questionnaire asks the WG 
chair to report on the state of that consensus.
I sense that there is some concern underlying your questions 
regarding the choices being made by a particular WG...  The PROTO 
process isn't intended to, and really won't, affect the authority or 
the responsibility of WG chairs to guide the WG through difficult 
decision-making processes and to make a determination regarding when 
rough consensus has been reached on a particular choice or approach. 
This is the core role of the WG chair.  The PROTO document does give 
the WG chair an explicit opportunity to share any concerns that 
he/she might have about a particular consensus call and/or selection 
process with the AD, but it doesn't change the nature of that process.
If you are concerned that an unfair selection process is being 
followed in a particular WG (or has been in the recent past), you 
should talk to the WG chairs about it.  If you are not satisfied with 
the WG chairs' response, you should raise the issue with the 
responsible AD listed on the charter page.
Margaret







_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf