Re: [charter-tool] include BOFs?

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 12:46 AM -0500 12/21/10, David Harrington wrote:
>1) Would it make sense to allow an AD to start a record at the
>(optional) BOF stage? The IESG and IAB review starts at the BOF stage.
>That might presumably be before the first proposed charter.

This works for me if it works for the IESG. I would refine it a bit to starting at the AD-sponsored BoF stage; that is, make it clear that there has to be some AD buy-in before anything appears in this tracker.

>2) often the stages include an informal IESG meeting, and requested
>IAB review.

For the "informal IESG meeting", I'm not sure you want to formalize that as a step in the timeline. Otherwise, it becomes a more-than-informal IESG meeting.

This might (or might not) be a politically tricky question: does the IESG want to formalize an optional two steps for "requested IAB review" and "received IAB review"?

>3) It might be good if the AD cmments can be identified as discuss or
>comment level. We do quite a lot of comment-level wordsmithing; it
>would be good if ADs could clearly identify what  they consider to be
>the critically important issues. I am not sure if the DISCUSS criteria
>apply, or whether a different set of criteria would need to be
>applied.

Please do not ask your humble servant to assign semantics to your actions. :-) In specific, "DISCUSS" is something that has semantics for ballot positions on Internet Drafts; if you want to extend that to not-ballot-positions on not-Internet-Drafts, I should not be doing that here. Having said that, if y'all come up with a few labels (like "blocking", "minor", and so on, but really these need to be your words, not mine), I would extend section 2.3 to cover tags on comments.

>4) for 2.8, it might be good to have milestone baselines (resettable
>by the AD) versus current projections (resettable by the chairs with
>AD approval), so we can easily see how much the milestones have
>slipped.

Section 2.8 is about the body of the charter, not the milestones. I'll add a different requirement that it must be easy to compare the milestones in the proposed charter to current reality.

>5) in 2.2, you might want to be able to change the name of a WG (e.g.,
>from homegate to homenet). One way to handle this would be to have a
>pointer to a second record that continues discussion under a new name
>(and the new record should have a pointer to the previous record).

Good catch.

>6) the pointer to a mailing list should be able to be supplemented
>when a new (e.g. an ietf list) supercedes an earlier list for
>discussion. (or the official mailing list should be able to soemhow
>import the old list by value rather than by reference).

Yep.

>7) in 2.10, it ight be useful to ensure that all earlier charters
>reflect the info at the time of the earlier charter, such as the
>area/AD, and the proposed WG name and acronym.

Yep.

>8) a keyword search might be useful for locating earlier BOFs and/or
>concluded WGs.

Yep.

>9) a record that holds a URL to each concluded WG might be useful
>(even if all the record data is not provided by the database)

Yep.

>10) There should be a point, such as at external review, when new-work
>is notified of a proposed WG. This may need a manual push-button to
>trigger this at the appropriate time.

It should definitely be manual. Added.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium