The IESG charter process

Brian E Carpenter brian at hursley.ibm.com
Thu Mar 6 18:10:04 CET 2003


It certainly needs to be raised in plenary. I think an announced ad-hoc
list is the best first step - effectively a virtual BOF. And if that
reveals a significant lack of consensus, we may need to go to a WG
instead of a 4 week last call. But I do understand why Harald would
rather avoid a WG, if there seems to be consensus.

   Brian

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> 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


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list