Re: [Icar] ICAR draft charter

Alex,

	The revised charter does not address many comments about the
first version of the charter. What do you want us to do:

	- assume that all unaddressed comments were heard
	  and left unaddressed intentionally by the people
	  who know better;

	- assume that all unaddressed comments were missed
	  by mistake and should be repeated again by people
	  who have nothing better to do than to dig through
	  old postings and repeat old comments;

	- something else?

Please advice.

Also, unrelated to the above, do the proposed milestones meet Dave
Crocker's "usefulness" criteria? Should they?

Thanks,

Alex.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Alex Zinin wrote:

> Folks-
>
> Draft charter below. Please read. I'd like to hear from as many people
> as possible.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Alex
>
>
>    WG name: improved cross-area review (icar)
>
>    Chairs: <TBD>
>
>    General Area Director(s):
>     Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
>
>    General Area Advisor:
>     Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
>
>    Mailing list: icar@ietf.org
>    Subscription: icar-request@ietf.org
>    Archives :
>    https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/icar/current/maillist.html
>
>    WG Description:
>
>      Work out mechanisms for improved cross-functional review within
>      the IETF. This includes a better community review, as well as
>      more structured (formal and role-based) pre-IESG review that may
>      be used to improve scalability of the IESG review function. It is
>      an explicit goal of the WG to come up with mechanisms encouraging
>      earlier review of the documents. An early review is best for
>      catching architectural problems while they're still relatively
>      easy to solve. In particular, many cross-area interactions can be
>      spotted and dealt with, thus avoiding many "late surprises". A
>      final review can catch remaining cross-area interactions, as well
>      as deal with overall quality issues.
>
>      The WG will cooperate with others in starting and evaluating
>      experiments with both early reviews and structured reviews. The
>      evaluation of such experiments may be published as Informational
>      RFCs if the group so desires.
>
>      The WG will also coordinate with other WGs on proposed changes to
>      the IETF Working Group operations and Standards process if those
>      are considered necessary.
>
>    WG milestones:
>
>      FEB 2004: Submit -00 draft on improved community review
>      FEB 2004: Submit -00 draft on improved structured review
>      SEP 2004: Submit draft on improved community review to
>                the IESG for publication as BCP
>      SEP 2004: Submit draft on improved structured community review to
>                the IESG for publication as BCP
>      SEP 2005: Evaluate WG progress and potential; close or recharter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Icar mailing list
> Icar@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar
>

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar