>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
JFC> At 23:53 22/02/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
JFC> I think we all are in agreement except on an idea Eudardo
JFC> Mendez gave me. I will rephrase it as "if someting tastes as
JFC> a WG, smells like a WG, its charter should be approved like
JFC> for a WG". The non-WG list is only subject to the approbation
JFC> of an AD. This opens the door to too many possible contention
JFC> and COI suspicions. Logic and ethic calls for non-WG list
JFC> receiving WG authority rights to be subject to WG creation
JFC> cycle (obviously far faster). I think it should result from a
JFC> simple change in the registration form and page display. It
JFC> will say the status of the non-WG list approval and
JFC> details. To be on the list an AD approval is enough. To get
JFC> full WG priviledges the non-WG list will need to have the
JFC> "IAB reviewed", "IESG approved", Area and ADs, etc.
>> In principle this sounds fine. My confusion stems from the
>> fact that it's actually more restrictions that are applied to
>> IETF lists than privileges.
>>
>> Here is what an IETf list implies to me: * open participation *
>> an appeals path * open archive * IETf IPR
>>
>> What privileges do you see?
JFC> I am not sure about what you ask. Their priviledge is to be
JFC> an IETF list. This implies constraints (IESG approval, IAB
JFC> charter review,...) Their priviledge is reduced
JFC> contrainst. AD approval is enough for those not deciding for
JFC> the IETF. No Charter, just a few lines describing their
JFC> topic. jfc
Normally when you want to require an approval process like chartering
it is because there is some power or authority being delegated to a
list. If the only thing that being an IETF list gets you is
additional constraints, why do we need to have a complicated
chartering process?
Now if you propose that whenever an IETF list is given authority--over
a registry, over some approval process etc--it needs a charter and
that charter needs community review, I agree with you.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf