The IESG charter process

[Keith Moore]

> What process it makes sense to follow in this case is highly
> dependent on what you think the purpose of the IESG charter is,
> and what it will be used for.

We need to stop calling this a charter, and start calling it documentation
of current practice.  It's clearly useful to document current practice,
and the justification for current practice, especially when a lot of the
criticism of IESG practice is done out of ignorance of what that practice 
actually is and the reasons why things are done that way.

An IESG charter should not be attempted until there is a shared
understanding of the problems of the whole organization, and consensus on what
changes need to be made throughout the organization, not just to IESG.  
Changes to IESG are almost certainly necessary, but those changes almost
certainly need to be made in concert with changes to WG operation and/or IAB,
and perhaps other changes.

> It is important, IMO, to avoid a situation where a document is
> published through the back channel, and then interpreted (by
> the IESG or others, now or in the future) as a community mandate.

Maybe I missed it, but aside from a typo in the document title, I didn't see
any attempt to claim a mandate.

Keith