Margaret, Pete, As much value as it has, I totally agree with the two previous speakers. I don't currently see any benefit of putting the IESG charter document forward as output of the community, but as communication from IESG to the community. I believe that the problem-statement WG and the community as a whole should review and then conclude what the actual charter should be. Cheers, Jonne. > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:21 PM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: A charter for the IESG > > > On 3/8/03 at 5:22 PM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > >I think that there could be considerable value in publishing > a document > >that explains what the IESG believes its charter to be (#1 > above). Among > >other things, this could serve as a useful baseline for any > changes that > >the community decides to make as a result of the > problem-statement effort. > >But, I would prefer to see such a document published as an > Info RFC, with > >wording that would discourage misinterpretation of the document as a > >community mandate. > > I agree wholeheartedly with Margaret, with regard to both the value > of such a document and the form it should take. I believe it would be > incredibly useful to the problem-statement group, especially since it > has been said that some of the items in the problem-statement draft > do not reflect the reality of how the IESG operates. It would be good > to actually see how the IESG views its operations. I also think that > an Informational RFC is exactly what is called for; a BCP would > require IETF consensus and would inappropriately compete with the > problem-statement work. > > pr > -- > Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com> > QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: > (858)651-1102 > >