Dear Mr Rescorla,
At 03:57 PM 14-07-2020, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Ignoring the rest of your message, this simply does not comport with either
existing practice or 2418, which explicitly states:
The formation of a working group requires a charter which is
primarily negotiated between a prospective working group Chair and
the relevant Area Director(s), although final approval is made by the
IESG with advice from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
While you may wish that the IETF process didn't allow the AD to
write the charter, the plain text here says otherwise.
My comment was not about what I wish. It was about one of the
documents referenced by the "Note Well". I looked up the word
"comport" in Merriam-Webster to understand it: "to be in agreement on
every point". The meaning of "negotiated" is: "to bring about
through discussion and compromise". If I go by what is written, it
would mean that the advice from the Internet Architecture Board is
not optional. There were some messages about that on the thread.
I don't see anything in the text which you quoted which forbids the
relevant Area Director from writing the draft charter. It was
difficult to find the response to the last "appeal" as it is not
published on the IETF web site. This is part of a sentence from that
response: "a named contributor handling the WG process can be
perceived as a potential conflict of interest".
I did a quick search for other cases:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/AaYxebF1iasZipi-zKMhUmCuwtU/
In that thread, there was a disagreement(s) on a part(s) of the
proposal. From what I understand, it was addressed through
discussion. My understanding of that is that it fits within the text
which you quoted.
There are three questions:
(a) Does the IETF process, as referenced in the "Note Well", allow
the relevant
Area Director(s) to write a draft charter?
(b) Does the IETF process, as referenced in the "Note Well", allow
the relevant
Area Director(s) to vote on a draft charter?
(c) Does the IETF process, as referenced in the "Note Well", allow
the IESG to
approve a charter?
A mailing list subscriber who only participates on the mailing list
could find it difficult to question or disagree with a proposal from
an Area Director. In my opinion, it is okay to do (a) or (b) but not
both. The rationale is to avoid the perception of a potential
conflict of interest and also to avoid creating a perception that the
draft charter is being imposed by the Area Director. I am okay with (c).
In my opinion, (written) rules should reflect existing practice or
else they end up fostering an environment of "double standards". As
a side comment, I noticed the following on the IETF web site: "Or
sometimes you will get a reply from someone whose first language is
not English, and they can be rude without intending it." [1] My
experience is the reverse.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. According to the British Council, it is alleged that a
lexicographer named Noah Webster changed how the words were spelled
to make the American version different of English from the British as
a way of showing cultural independence from its mother country.
