Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050820100847.03cccc80@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:10:28 +0200
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <4305E914.1020300@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050818101910.0373feb0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<4305E914.1020300@zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: dmm@1-4-5.net, ietf@ietf.org, henrik@levkowetz.com
Subject: Re: is the WG-Charter concept changed?
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 16:13 19/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>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,
>
>No, it does not do that - it moves some procedural responsibility to
>the PROTO shepherd, but it doesn't change either the WG Chair's duty
>to judge WG consensus or the AD's responsibility to review the draft
>for the IESG.

Sorry, Brian - you comment but you do not respond.

1. comment: yes it gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal 
opinion (but this is not a problem if this is consistently organised):
(1) due to  the load on ADs, this may lead to more delegation of the 
AD to the Shepherding Chair, however the Chair has more time: this is 
no problem if the WG knows the report (AD delegates to Chair who 
writes and can less review, Chair is to delegate part of the 
reviewing to WG). (2) the opinion of the Chair becomes the reference 
in the questionnaire, no more the Charter the Draft overlooks.

2. question: is the Charter still the reference when reporting to the 
IESG? If no this is a big change in the IETF. If yes, then this must 
translate into the reporting questionnaire. At least in asking the 
way the Charter has been respected in all technical inclusiveness.

You cannot say something is the reference to follow, and not even 
allude to it in the execution reporting questionnaire.
jfc



>    Brian
>
>  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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf