I agree with Lars' statement below and don't understand the logic of the "yes" ballot here. That said, I see there are now also two "block" ballots [1] so it looks like the IESG collectively are doing the right thing. S. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ideas/ballot/ On 11/10/17 08:01, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-10-10, at 17:42, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Right after I send this e-mail I will be opening the ballot [1] for this week’s IESG Telechat discussion of this (proposed) WG. I will be balloting “Yes†because I think that the discussion could be taken further in the context of a WG (hopefully with additional security/privacy expertise). I know that the charter text is not perfect, and realize that I may be in the rough anyway. > > not only is the charter text "not perfect", it *raises* serious security and privacy concerns. > > Going forward with the current charter text is hence exactly the wrong thing to do. At the very least, the charter text requires a serious refactoring, to attempt to either address the raised concerns or to explicitly (and drastically) limit the scope of the work so that there is consensus that these issues can be worked out in a WG. > > The statement to take this "further in the context of a WG (hopefully with additional security/privacy expertise)" basically asks the rest of us who have no interest in this work to spend cycles on it anyway, in order to do damage control in a WG. The reason we do consensus calls on charters is so that we *don't* need to do that for ideas that are clearly problematic and shouldn't be chartered. > > Lars >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature