On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
Hi Paul -
Thanks again for the copious comments; they are greatly appreciated.
In section 2.2, I would prefer either using the names the tracker currently
uses for IESG evaluation:
"Discuss" and "Comment", or some set of words that do not intersect those,
perhaps "Blocking" and
"Not-Blocking". The current set ("discuss" and "regular") will lead to
confusion.
Changed to "blocking" and "non-blocking". (I'm not a big fan of gratuitous
capitalization, as exemplified by "a DISCUSS"...)
In section 2.7, you don't specifically capture WGs that currently exist, but
are not rechartering at the moment.
I think you meant to as part of the second paragraph, but the last phrase
could be read to be exclusive.
Yeeps; fixed.
(As an aside - do you intend that for existing working groups, this history
will go all the way back to when
the group was formed? Will we be able to count on <foo-charter-00> being the
charter that the working group
formed with for all foo?)
I have no idea. That's why I use the waffle-words "as much information as is
currently known...that can be done in a mostly-automated fashion". It's up to
the IAOC to decide how much effort to throw at that part.
In section 3.1 - It would be better to have the ability to override the
tool's rejection of a name because some
previous effort (particularly abandoned ones) had the same name. If someone
thought about using a name
5 years ago, but never took it even to the point of Internal Review, why
should the tool force it not be be used now?
This is a place that human judgement should be allowed to be exercised.
Fixed. Changed "so the tool will tell the AD if the acronym that is being
proposed has been used in earlier WG charter proposals and prevent its use" to
"so the tool will warn the AD if the acronym that is being proposed has been
used in earlier WG charter proposals and suggest against its use".
Also, we should make sure the tool doesn't unintentionally make reopening a
closed WG harder than intended.
I think that is covered above.
It would help to clarify in the first bullet in 3.1 that the tool should
prompt the AD, but not prevent them from
completing the move if that's the right thing to do. (The tool is providing a
reminder, not enforcing a rule).
Done.
In the 4th bullet of that list, you ask the tool to send a note to the
scretariat to schedule discussion on a telechat.
In practice today, this happens as part of the transition into External
Review. I suggest moving the sentence into
the 3rd bullet.
That was not my reading of the current IESG procedures. Let me talk that one
over with the IESG.
In section 3.2's second bullet, it is possible, I believe, to directly
approve a recharter from internal review. The tool
should allow that transition.
Added.
I'm a little concerned about taking working groups for which a recharter is
being considered out of the state named
"WG Exists". Semantically, if you aren't in that state, it implies the WG
doesn't exist, and I could see someone
drawing the wrong conclusion from a search. The best way to avoid this might
be to rename the "WG Exists" state
to something like "WG Chartered - no rechartering effort currently in
progress" (which I realize is too wordy).
Yes, wordy. Currently, that list is followed by "All states above, except for
"WG exists", are given the annotation "Rechartering"." Would it suffice to
change the annotation to "WG continuing during rechartering" or something of
that ilk?
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf