Thomas,
we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the
time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving
flexibility on the mapping matter.
The notion of including a non-normative mapping document was very late
in the process and the charter just gives the WG the latitude to
include what it agreed in wanted to include in the work.
any charter written 18 months ago is bound to be somewhat out of date,
especially the target milestones. You may blame the chairman for
failing to achieve them but I don't think we need to revise them now
as they would be purely historical given the current last call about
to expire in a couple of days (unless someone actually asks for
extension).
Speaking of which, no one has actually requested an extension of the
original 24 August deadline so I am going to close comments on the
Last Call at end of the day on the 24th unless I hear differently from
the WG participants.
Vint
On Aug 19, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Looking at this recharter, the immediate question I had was "what has
actually changed in the charter?" so I can figure out if I care.
I gather there is one very small change. But you'd have to be a WG
insider to know this.
Also, reading through the charter, it reads like it was written a year
and a half ago (which it was), and parts of the text in the charter
are OBE, so just reading the charter as is gives a misleading picture
of where things currently stand.
I guess I'm raising a bit of a meta point here that this recharter
announcement is not very helpful to the general community, which seems
bad. And if the charter needs to be updated, it really should be
updated to reflect the current state of play.
In particular:
- it is not easy to figure out what has actually changed relative
the current charter (this could have been handled by a short note
providing context as part of the announcement).
- it includes actions of the form "will do" that I believe have
already been done. (e.g., there are 6 WG documents, not 4 as the
charter suggests, the design team is presumably no longer driving
this, as the documents are fully WG ones now, and the WG is not
doing an "extended review" of the DT output, etc.)
Now, I suspect that it was decided to minimize the amount of work
needed to recharter and thus just update the one or two important
sentences in the charter, and I sympathize with that desire. But I
would also hope we could at least update it so that the average IETF
reader (or anyone interested in IDNs for that matter) could read the
charter and understand the current state of play. I don't think it
would take a lot of effort to update it, and I'm not calling for any
subtantive changes. They should all be editorial, so additional
changes should not be controversial.
IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Goals and Milestones:
Apr 2008 WG formation
May 2008 Decision on form and structure of the WG document set
Sep 2008 WG Last Call on WG document set
Nov 2008 IETF Last Call on WG document set
Oops!
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf