The IESG charter process

Brian E Carpenter brian at hursley.ibm.com
Sat Mar 8 15:09:06 CET 2003


Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> --On fredag, mars 07, 2003 08:59:23 -0500 Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
> wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> 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".

Agreed. But if it is intended to state current practice rather than
define future practice, maybe it *should* be Informational,
like RFC 1358 and 1601 (the earlier versions of the IAB Charter).

> 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.

fyi, the IAB charter was debated on the Poisson list and the IETF list, 
and went up to a -04 version before it was a BCP.
> 
> I'll go make sure it is.

Thankyou. See you there.

   Brian




More information about the Problem-statement mailing list