Re: [charter-tool] include BOFs?
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 23 December 2010 02:02 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: charter-tool@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: charter-tool@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BADD43A6AD2 for <charter-tool@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:02:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GyGbqa-foU1X for <charter-tool@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF4A3A6AA6 for <charter-tool@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.150] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBN24PFx098947 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:04:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240880c9385b3cfbf0@[10.20.30.150]>
In-Reply-To: <B5CB4F893F53452599F0A58FF3405C5A@23FX1C1>
References: <B5CB4F893F53452599F0A58FF3405C5A@23FX1C1>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:04:23 -0800
To: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, charter-tool@ietf.org
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [charter-tool] include BOFs?
X-BeenThere: charter-tool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <charter-tool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/charter-tool>, <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/charter-tool>
List-Post: <mailto:charter-tool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/charter-tool>, <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:02:33 -0000
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
- [charter-tool] include BOFs? David Harrington
- Re: [charter-tool] include BOFs? Paul Hoffman
- [charter-tool] Quick look at draft-ietf-genarea-c… Russ Housley
- Re: [charter-tool] Quick look at draft-ietf-genar… Paul Hoffman