On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 5:10 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
And, fwiw, I agree with that too but, since a non-trivial number of
people seem concerned about various scenarios and what precedents
and/or long-term damage they might stick us with, it seems to me that
a reasonable solution would be the one I proposed: Assume that the
current IESG, and particular Murray, have things under control, that
any actual risks about about the future, and modify things only to
the extent of explicitly planning to review the WG and its charter
when Murray (and possibly other IESG members) are replaced. With
some fresh eyes and much of a year worth of experience, we should be
able to, at least, have a more constructive and less paranoid
discussion.
For the present, that would let the WG get moving on matters of
substance under the current charter and without more fuss, which I
think is consistent with what both you and Rob have suggested. If we
have to have more of this discussion, let's have it after we have
some experience.
best,
john
--On Monday, May 27, 2024 00:15 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> FWIW, I think Rob's take below matches mine. Trying this out
> to see if it works seems worth a shot and given chartering
> followed the usual process I see no reason to second-guess
> IETF consensus to form this WG with this charter.
I'm quite astonished by the magnitude of the concern being addressed here, especially only after the proposal passed through the typical internal and external charter review periods. As Stephen points out, this charter followed the usual process, and before that I sought input from a number of people who typically participate in this area.
At any rate, yes, I'm happy to consider this a test or a process experiment. If, after a few documents have been considered and either processed or rejected, the consensus appears to be that this idea is a failure, I would consider it my duty to spontaneously commence rechartering to remove the offending constraint.
A suggestion was made shortly after the concern was raised that I'm only just getting back to. (I'll give credit where credit was due if this works.). Would this charter change alleviate the problem?
OLD:
• Prior to accepting any
Standards Track document for development, there must be a commitment to
implement the resulting proposed standard from at least two independent
parties, as recorded on
a related IETF mailing list.
NEW #1:
• Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development,
there must be an indication from at least two independent parties that
they intend to implement the resulting proposed standard, as recorded on
a related IETF mailing list.
NEW #2:
• Prior to accepting any Standards Track document for development,
there must be an indication from at least two independent parties that
they are interested in implementing the resulting proposed standard, as
recorded on a related IETF mailing list.
-MSK
