The IESG charter process

[Margaret Wasserman]

>>The number of suggested changes has been relatively small. I've got an 
>>-02 version of the charter that I'm going to publish after San Francisco, 
>>and thought that I'd do a 4-week Last Call after that, to see if there 
>>are more issues that need to be raised.
>>
>>Since this is mainly documenting what we (the community and the IESG) 
>>think that the role of the IESG is *currently*, there's only so many 
>>changes that are worth folding in.
>
>Harald,
>
>         Margaret is correct.
>
>         The process for the IESG Charter document that you outline is 
> permitted
>by RFC-2026.  It is unwise for that document at this time, because of the
>broad community concerns that have been expressed.

What process it makes sense to follow in this case is highly
dependent on what you think the purpose of the IESG charter is,
and what it will be used for.

If you think that this charter should represent IETF consensus
regarding what we think that role of the IESG should be moving
forward, we need a great deal more community involvement before
publishing it.  That effort would need to incude a discussion
of whether or not a major IETF reorganization is needed.

If you think that the charter merely documents the IESG's view
of its own current responsibilities, which the community may
later choose to change, then the process that Harald has
suggested is fine.  But, this limitation should be made clear
in the document.

It is important, IMO, to avoid a situation where a document is
published through the back channel, and then interpreted (by
the IESG or others, now or in the future) as a community mandate.

Margaret