Dear IESG,
I can't think of ANYONE who wouldn't be better off if we published deltas
for WG charter revisions when we ask for comments. We can each trivially
produce our own deltas, but if you want feedback from the community,
providing deltas is likely to get more (and more helpful) feedback.
If the approach taken also accommodated the kind of charter thrashing where
Robert could distribute two revisions of SIP-CLF before IETF 75, distribute
three revisions to the proposed charter three times during IETF 75 based on
hallway and meeting room discussions, and send out a "here's where the
proposed charter is" e-mail (with a trail showing how we got there) after
IETF 75, that would be even better. Robert is good and has SIP-CLF charter
revisions under source code control, but it would be superb if all of the
proposed revisions were under source code control at the same location.
Much like we now do for Internet-Drafts... :D
IMO, of course.
Thanks,
Spencer
Looking at this recharter, the immediate question I had was "what has
actually changed in the charter?" so I can figure out if I care.
I gather there is one very small change. But you'd have to be a WG
insider to know this.
Also, reading through the charter, it reads like it was written a year
and a half ago (which it was), and parts of the text in the charter
are OBE, so just reading the charter as is gives a misleading picture
of where things currently stand.
I guess I'm raising a bit of a meta point here that this recharter
announcement is not very helpful to the general community, which seems
bad. And if the charter needs to be updated, it really should be
updated to reflect the current state of play.
In particular:
- it is not easy to figure out what has actually changed relative
the current charter (this could have been handled by a short note
providing context as part of the announcement).
- it includes actions of the form "will do" that I believe have
already been done. (e.g., there are 6 WG documents, not 4 as the
charter suggests, the design team is presumably no longer driving
this, as the documents are fully WG ones now, and the WG is not
doing an "extended review" of the DT output, etc.)
Now, I suspect that it was decided to minimize the amount of work
needed to recharter and thus just update the one or two important
sentences in the charter, and I sympathize with that desire. But I
would also hope we could at least update it so that the average IETF
reader (or anyone interested in IDNs for that matter) could read the
charter and understand the current state of play. I don't think it
would take a lot of effort to update it, and I'm not calling for any
subtantive changes. They should all be editorial, so additional
changes should not be controversial.
IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> writes:
Goals and Milestones:
Apr 2008 WG formation
May 2008 Decision on form and structure of the WG document set
Sep 2008 WG Last Call on WG document set
Nov 2008 IETF Last Call on WG document set
Oops!
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf