On Feb 19, 2017, at 2:07 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com>
wrote:
And this is why the IETF community shouldn't treat charter updates as pro
forma. Charter review is an important part of the feedback mechanism that
keeps the IETF a consensus-driven organization. Doing out-of-charter work,
or lawyering the charter to say that work that really isn't part of the
intent of the charter nevertheless conforms to the letter of the charter,
bypasses this important step.
Describing the process issue as "lawyering" conveys the idea that it is
unreasonable to complain about such issues. I agree with what you wrote
about the feedback mechanism.
By lawyering, I mean the practice of trying to fit more in the charter than
those who participated in writing that charter intended for it to cover. This
is a very fine line: there are definitely cases where one can legitimately
debate what the actual intention expressed in the charter is. For this reason
I think it's best for ADs to err on the side of caution and update the charter
if an AD thinks they might be at the edge.