Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050818101910.0373feb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:05:11 +0200
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: dmm@1-4-5.net, henrik@levkowetz.com
Subject: is the WG-Charter concept changed?
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt

The Draft above seems already to be used in some areas to rule a procedure 
to decrease the AD's working load and to speed up the reviewing process. It 
gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal opinion, what may have 
cons and pros. I thought the WG Chair decides of rough consensus and if the 
WG deliverables are ready in reference to the Charter, the "contract" 
between the IETF/IESG/IAB community and the WG. Am I wrong or is this changed ?

The word "Charter" is not even used in this Draft. The decisions and 
comments sent to the IESG are therefore subject to the WG Chair's position 
and not to the IESG requirements. I suggested the authors the following two 
additions (tentative text provided). I have not received a response yet 
while I face a case where this point is important and urgent.

1. The first addition is that the proposed write-ups are presented for 
quick comments to the WG.
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?

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf