The IESG charter process

Margaret Wasserman mrw at windriver.com
Fri Mar 7 09:46:04 CET 2003


At 03:06 PM 3/7/2003 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Maybe I'm a sucker for self-punishment, but I do think that the charter as 
>written
>documents what mandate from the community the IESG thinks that it's been 
>operating
>under, and thus it's appropriate to title it a "charter".

I have no problem with calling this document a charter.  And, most
of its contents are actually based on specific responsibilities
granted to the IESG by existing RFCs, which are a "mandate" from
the IETF community (unless/until they are changed, of course).

But, earlier, Harald wrote...

>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.

I don't think that the second half of this sentence follows from
the first.  If this is intended to document the current IESG mandate
from the IETF community, then any changes that have the consensus
support of the IETF community should be folded in, even if they
would result in updating or obsoleting previously published RFCs.

I'm not sure if it makes sense, in the context of the ongoing problem-
statement effort, to open a discussion now regarding what charter the
IETF community wants to give to the IESG.  But, if we're going to do
that, we should probably consider a mailing list and at least a BOF
(if a not a WG) in Vienna.

>But one clear point to take away from this discussion (which is definitely 
>NOT within the charter of problem-statement) is that the charter 
>discussion needs to be visible on the IETF list.

I agree that having this discussion on the IETF list is preferable
to continuing to have it here, so lead and I will follow.

Margaret





More information about the Problem-statement mailing list