Re: is the WG-Charter concept changed?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Hi Jefsey,

At 11:05 AM +0200 8/18/05, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt

I agree with Brian that this procedures does not change the standards process and/or the official role of the WG chair. In fact, the ideas in this document were largely adapted from things that WG chairs were already doing in some areas or in some groups. The idea is to ask the WG chairs to take more responsibility for the quality of WG output, hopefully reducing the number of documents that come to the IESG will serious quality issues.

However, I do think it would make sense to consider/discuss your specific suggestions:

1. The first addition is that the proposed write-ups are presented for quick comments to the WG.

The "ballot write-up" portion of the questionnaire does become public, and I suppose that it could be reviewed by the WG. However, I am not sure what benefit that would provide... Before the PROTO questionnaire was in use, ADs would provide the ballot write-ups with no input from anyone. In general, they consist of the abstract of the document (perhaps with a bit more text to say why the specification is needed), a summary of the WG consensus process and a statement about who has reviewed the document in the later stages of review/approval. These statements do not end-up in the RFC or in any archival location...

What is your concern about these statements? And, what do you hope that a review will accomplish?

I think that we should be careful about adding any more steps to the standards publication process, so I will personally tend to push back on any steps that do not, IMO, add significant value.

2. two questions more are added, one on the way the Charter has been respected, one on the care given not to favor one technical vision over others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose competition in a WG is not between propositions but for the best user needs support?

Today, we do not have an explicit check that a WG work item that has been submitted for publication matches a WG charter milestone or is otherwise within the WG charter. There is an implicit check during AD review, perhaps, but not an explicit one.

I would like to see such an explicit check added, so I personally agree that it would be a good addition to the PROTO questionnaire for the WG chair to state what WG milestone is represented by a particular document and/or otherwise explain how the document is in-charter for the WG. I think that we should consider this addition if/when the PROTO process is updated.

Others may disagree, of course.

The second portion of your suggestion is, IMO, already represented in the questionnaire, as we ask about the WG consensus process, contentious issues, other options discussed by the WG and the strength of WG consensus on the document. It is the role of the WG chair to determine WG consensus, and the questionnaire asks the WG chair to report on the state of that consensus.

I sense that there is some concern underlying your questions regarding the choices being made by a particular WG... The PROTO process isn't intended to, and really won't, affect the authority or the responsibility of WG chairs to guide the WG through difficult decision-making processes and to make a determination regarding when rough consensus has been reached on a particular choice or approach. This is the core role of the WG chair. The PROTO document does give the WG chair an explicit opportunity to share any concerns that he/she might have about a particular consensus call and/or selection process with the AD, but it doesn't change the nature of that process.

If you are concerned that an unfair selection process is being followed in a particular WG (or has been in the recent past), you should talk to the WG chairs about it. If you are not satisfied with the WG chairs' response, you should raise the issue with the responsible AD listed on the charter page.

Margaret







_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]