Hi Paul -
In section 2.2, I would prefer either using the names the tracker currently uses for IESG evaluation:
"Discuss" and "Comment", or some set of words that do not intersect those, perhaps "Blocking" and
"Not-Blocking". The current set ("discuss" and "regular") will lead to confusion.
In section 2.7, you don't specifically capture WGs that currently exist, but are not rechartering at the moment.
I think you meant to as part of the second paragraph, but the last phrase could be read to be exclusive.
(As an aside - do you intend that for existing working groups, this history will go all the way back to when
the group was formed? Will we be able to count on <foo-charter-00> being the charter that the working group
formed with for all foo?)
In section 3.1 - It would be better to have the ability to override the tool's rejection of a name because some
previous effort (particularly abandoned ones) had the same name. If someone thought about using a name
5 years ago, but never took it even to the point of Internal Review, why should the tool force it not be be used now?
This is a place that human judgement should be allowed to be exercised.
Also, we should make sure the tool doesn't unintentionally make reopening a closed WG harder than intended.
It would help to clarify in the first bullet in 3.1 that the tool should prompt the AD, but not prevent them from
completing the move if that's the right thing to do. (The tool is providing a reminder, not enforcing a rule).
In the 4th bullet of that list, you ask the tool to send a note to the scretariat to schedule discussion on a telechat.
In practice today, this happens as part of the transition into External Review. I suggest moving the sentence into
the 3rd bullet.
In section 3.2's second bullet, it is possible, I believe, to directly approve a recharter from internal review. The tool
should allow that transition.
I'm a little concerned about taking working groups for which a recharter is being considered out of the state named
"WG Exists". Semantically, if you aren't in that state, it implies the WG doesn't exist, and I could see someone
drawing the wrong conclusion from a search. The best way to avoid this might be to rename the "WG Exists" state
to something like "WG Chartered - no rechartering effort currently in progress" (which I realize is too wordy).
RjS
On Mar 11, 2011, at 4:11 PM, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the General Area Open Meeting WG
> (genarea) to consider the following document:
> - 'Requirements for a Working Group Charter Tool'
> <draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool-07.txt> as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-03-25. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool/
>
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf