Hi Alissa,
At 06:22 AM 14-07-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Suresh Krishnan, Russ Housley, and myself. See
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/Qls9UHKkG4kE9KKK4WQ-KBc0oLg/>.
>
> 2. Who approved the draft charter?
The IESG.
I find it awkward to broach the following subject as you are an Area
Director. You may have noticed that I have zero support.
A person cannot be both judge and jury. Within an IETF context, a
person cannot be both the author and reviewer of a document; an Area
Director cannot sponsor his/her own draft. The reason is that it
would create a conflict of interest. In my opinion, writing the
draft charter and approving it creates a potential conflict of interest.
There didn't seem to be any outstanding requests for changes to the
charter text that would prevent its approval.
The definition of a charter is that it is a contract between a
working group and the IETF to perform a set of tasks. The milestones
are part of the charter text.
> 4. Are the milestones listed at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/UB3zrC22s1B89PEwAOM-Y488TRs/
> compliant with RFC 2418?
Yes.
I read RFC 2418 again. It states that the basis for forming a
working group is when the prospective Chair(s) and Area Director are
satisfied with the charter form and content. The RFC also states
that milestones shall consist of deliverables that can be qualified
as showing specific achievement. A deliverable is a result. In this
case, it would be the result(s) produced by the working group, e.g.
send draft to IESG by December 2020. In my opinion, the milestones
and the draft charter are not compliant with RFC 2418.
It does not make sense to go ahead with the working group approval
while the draft charter for that working group is under (formal)
dispute. It is as if the decision is/will be valid even though there
is a dispute about that decision.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
