RE: meta-issues on charter discussions (was: Re: WG Review: Recharter of

Hi,

Personally, I would like to see deltas kept for updated charters,
especially the milestone information, so we can go back and find out
how timely a WG has achieved its completed objectives. 

When I try to determine whether participating in a WG seems justified,
one thing I want to know is whether that WG if effective. Not being
able to see when a milestone was supposed to be completed versus when
it was completed makes that harder to determine. And when a re-charter
causes the old milestones to disappear, we are throwing away useful
information.

dbh

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:40 PM
To: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: meta-issues on charter discussions (was: Re: WG 
Review: Recharter ofInternationalized Domain Names 
inApplications, Revised (idnabis))

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


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

RE: meta-issues on charter discussions (was: Re: WG Review: Recharter ofInternationalized Domain Names inApplications, Revised (idnabis))