IETF problem pinpointing - the followup

avri doria avri@sm.luth.se
Wed, 06 Nov 2002 20:11:39 +0100


Aaron Falk wrote:
> avri doria wrote:
> 
>>- WG Charters.  There is a lot controversy around
>>charters.  
> 
> 
> Avri-
> 
> I find this statement surprising.  Can you elaborate?
> 


I can try.

Whenever I hear someone complaining that someone did not say no
to a work item, it is a charter issue.  Why was that charter approved?

Whenever I hear someone complain about something not being
a work item, it is a charter issue:  Why isn't it in the charter?

On what basis is something chartered as being in scope for the IETF?
And something else not in scope?  This could be called the IETF
architectural issue.  Or it could be the issue of the scope of IETF
work.  But the charter and the process of developing
and approving the charter is the concrete manifestation of that
problem.

By what process does a charter get approved?
I have been asked by people in working groups and never really been
able to answer.  In fact until today, I thought the IAB had to approve
them, now I am told, by Ran in his message, that the IAB only advises.
I feel bad about that bit of ignorance.  I have participated in this
organization for a very long time and I should have known that.

So, on what basis does the IESG decide that one item in a charter
proposal is accepted and another rejected?

Also, I have often heard complaints from people that were told that
something needed to be approved as a charter item before the WG could
work on it. They described the charter in terms that made it resemble a
straight jacket.

I have heard WG chairs get up and tell people not to complain about the
charter or its enforcement by the management; it was there for their own
good and management knew best.

I guess this is why I thought it was a item of some controversy.

a.