You can probably blame my vacation as well as process defaults for some confusion... I was already in Canada last week when we had the telechat where the IESG approved sending out the 1-line diff proposed for the charter, and I didn't take the time or stretch the process so that the charter discussion announcement had the contex for the change (or just the diff which was in some ways clearer).<br>
<br>Since the IETF community seriously discussed the issue of mappings when the charter was first approved, I personally felt it was important to fix that publicly before the WG completed its work on a path that might not have been expected.<br>
<br>If there is energy to fix the charter in other ways right now I would help, but I have not seen that energy given the understandable focus on the rest of the work.<br><br>Lisa<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Thomas Narten <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:narten@us.ibm.com">narten@us.ibm.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Vint,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> we are so close to the finish line that I don't think it is worth the<br>
> time and potential controversy to revise the charter beyond giving<br>
> flexibility on the mapping matter.<br>
<br>
</div>I will certainly defer to the chairs and ADs in this particular<br>
case.<br>
<br>
My bigger concern is the meta issue of recharters in general, and how<br>
the current method of just posting the new charter with no context or<br>
explanation seems a poor way of doing things, especially if the goal<br>
is to get meaningful community feedback. I'll followup on that on the<br>
separate thread that has since started.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Thomas<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>