draft-iesg-charter-00.txt

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

Hi Harald,

> the next chapters of the document are supposed to be "a bit more detail".
> But it would be wrong to go into too much detail in the "charter" document; 
> I'm working on another document called "iesg-procedures" which will 
> hopefully be a better place to put the details.

That sounds reasonable to me. Having it documented somewhere would be useful
since there has been some discussion about what the role of the IESG and what 
it's 'job description' is.
 
> Yes, the IESG has on occasion sent back documents for atrocious abuse of 
> the English language, and it's relatively routine to mention examples of 
> broken English when the document is sent back for other reasons; how can we 
> tell if the conclusion is right if we can't parse the sentence?
> But we don't do "English review" per se. Neither does the RFC 
> Editor (much).

That all is reasonable.  It is just helpful to know what is in-scope
and out-of-scope for the IESG.  

thanks,
John