--On Thursday, May 30, 2024 22:36 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. In case it isn't clear and regardless of how I feel about the concerns, I share your astonishment. My proposal was just a suggestion that might help us move forward and focus more on getting work done, both in that WG or elsewhere. > 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. I had assumed that, but thanks for confirming. > 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. >From my point of view and my understanding of the concerns expressed, either would be an improvement, getting rid of the contentious "commitment" in favor of intent or interest. I just hope we do not now need to spend time debating the difference between those alternatives. john
