Charter stuff (Re: Killing old/slow groups)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On onsdag, desember 11, 2002 09:03:13 -0600 Pete Resnick 
<presnick@qualcomm.com> wrote:

> On 12/10/02 at 7:04 AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> It was indicated, in Atlanta and elsewhere, that you do not have
>>> the time to fully document your existing processes, because you
>>> have too much other work to do.
>>
>> perhaps you would like to look at RFC 2026 et alia and
>> draft-iesg-charter-00.txt.
>
> None of those documents says anything about the IESG's "existing
> processes". I have sent private mail to Harald about
> draft-iesg-charter-00.txt, but to summarize:
>
> - It says nothing about voting practices. Does the IESG follow a rough
> consensus model, or does it do straight votes, or does each newly
> constituted IESG decide what it wants to do? (I personally know most of
> the answer, but it took a lot for me to figure it out.)

this comes from my understanding of the word "charter".

dictionary.com says:

char*ter n.

1. A document issued by a sovereign, legislature, or other authority, 
creating a public or private corporation, such as a city, college, or bank, 
and defining its privileges and purposes.
2. A written grant from the sovereign power of a country conferring certain 
rights and privileges on a person, a corporation, or the people: A royal 
charter exempted the Massachusetts colony from direct interference by the 
Crown.
3. A document outlining the principles, functions, and organization of a 
corporate body; a constitution: the city charter.
4. An authorization from a central organization to establish a local branch 
or chapter.
5. Special privilege or immunity.
6.a A contract for the commercial leasing of a vessel or space on a vessel.
  b The hiring or leasing of an aircraft, vessel, or other vehicle, 
especially for the exclusive, temporary use of a group of travelers.
7. A written instrument given as evidence of agreement, transfer, or 
contract; a deed.

I think the definition we are looking for is #3, which does NOT (to my 
mind) include the operating procedures of the body concerned.

I believe that the (non)voting procedures of the IESG have been set by the 
IESG, should be set by the IESG, probably need to be changed, and thus do 
not belong in the charter.

> - It would be nice to know what "technical quality and clarity of the
> specification is consistent with that expected for the maturity level to
> which the specification is recommended" means to the IESG in more detail
> than just that single line from 2026. And how are non-standards track
> documents judged?

Excellent question. How SHOULD they be judged?