Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re: OPEN ISSUE: Quality Process WG Charter)

[John C Klensin]

--On Sunday, 18 May, 2003 20:55 -0400 Margaret Wasserman 
<mrw at windriver.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> First, a point of clarification...
>
> The current process document suggests two WGs:
>
>          - A long-term WG to work on IETF organization
>                  and standards-track process.
>          - A near-term WG to focus on iterative
>                  improvements to WG quality processes.
>
> Would your proposal apply to both WGs?  Would it apply to other
> ongoing process-oriented WGs, such as the nomcom WG?

I believe that current procedure leaves the decision as to which 
WGs to assign to a particular area in the hands of the IESG.  I 
don't see any reason to change that.  From my point of view, 
this special/temporary area should be a "normal" as possible and 
should not require exceptional procedures.  I do assume that the 
community would form opinions about the IESG -- opinions that 
might potentially alter the results of the problem-statement WG 
-- but the community is free to form such opinions about 
unrelated WG assignments and other IESG actions as well.

That is, I guess, my advice to this WG if the WG wants to make 
that "temporary area" recommendation to the IESG: assignment of 
WGs to areas is an IESG responsibility, not something that is 
appropriately micromanaged from the bottom up.

If I were advising the IESG on the subject, I would suggest to 
them that this area get all of the process-related activities 
now assigned to (and being contemplated in/for) the General 
Area, include both of the above, problem-statement, IPR, nomcom 
and any other vestiges of Poission,  and, if they determine that 
it should involve a WG or BOF, rather than just a Last Call, any 
review efforts on the IESG Charter or related documents.  I 
would also suggest to them that, if they retained some of these 
WGs in the General Area or elsewhere --which I believe they 
should continue to have the perfect right to do-- a brief 
explanation to the community would be courteous and appropriate.

regards,
    john