The IESG charter process

[RJ Atkinson]

On Wednesday, Mar 5, 2003, at 09:06 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand wrote:
> --On onsdag, mars 05, 2003 08:36:31 -0500 Margaret Wasserman 
> <mrw at windriver.com> wrote:
>> Nothing has been done (that I've seen, anyway) to determine
>> if IETF community has consensus about an IESG charter.  So, an
>> IESG charter is not, IMO, close to finished.
>
> 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.

	I really think it needs to be discussed openly on some functional
IETF mailing list that has reasonably broad participation.  I could 
imagine
one using this list, the main IETF list, or some TBD list as candidates.

	The poised/poisson list is NOT a good choice for anything, IMHO, 
because
that list's membership is so strongly unlike any other IETF list (and 
because
a large number of people have historically been chased away from that 
list).

	Another suggestion is that the IESG Plenary devote time to a summary
of the IESG Charter (suggesting some specific list other than poised
for followups), in the interest of obtaining sufficiently broad review
of its contents.

IMHO,

Ran