You can probably blame my vacation as well as process defaults for some
confusion... I was already in Canada last week when we had the telechat
where the IESG approved sending out the 1-line diff proposed for the
charter, and I didn't take the time or stretch the process so that the
charter discussion announcement had the contex for the change (or just the
diff which was in some ways clearer).
Since the IETF community seriously discussed the issue of mappings when the
charter was first approved, I personally felt it was important to fix that
publicly before the WG completed its work on a path that might not have been
expected.
If there is energy to fix the charter in other ways right now I would help,
but I have not seen that energy given the understandable focus on the rest
of the work.
Lisa
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Thomas Narten
<narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
Vint,
we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the
time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving
flexibility on the mapping matter.
I will certainly defer to the chairs and ADs in this particular
case.
My bigger concern is the meta issue of recharters in general, and how
the current method of just posting the new charter with no context or
explanation seems a poor way of doing things, especially if the goal
is to get meaningful community feedback. I'll followup on that on the
separate thread that has since started.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf