Re: [Icar] ICAR draft charter rev 2

[[e-mail]]

alex, this revision of the charter proposal looks
pretty good

in the last sentence, the word "potential" in the
last sentence might be further detailed

thanks,
- dimitri.

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Alex Zinin [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 5:17 PM
>>To: [e-mail]
>>Subject: [Icar] ICAR draft charter rev 2
>>
>>
>>
>>Revision 2 below, please.
>>
>>-- 
>>Alex
>>
>>   WG name: improved cross-area review (icar)
>>
>>   Chairs: <TBD>
>>
>>   General Area Director(s):
>>    Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
>>
>>   General Area Advisor:
>>    Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
>>   
>>   Mailing list: [e-mail]
>>   Subscription: [e-mail]
>>   Archives : 
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/icar/current
>>/maillist.html
>>
>>   WG Description:
>>
>>     The WG will work out mechanisms for improved cross-functional
>>     review within the IETF, addressing the issues identified by the
>>     PROBLEM WG. This includes a better community review, as well as
>>     more structured pre-IESG review that may be used to improve
>>     scalability of the IESG review function.
>>
>>     Definitions:
>>
>>      o Cross-functional review: document review covering different
>>      aspects of Internet technology, including those represented by
>>      WGs within different IETF areas.
>>
>>      o Community review: document review performed by individual IETF
>>      participants and not caused by their responsibilities within
>>      the IETF management structure.
>>
>>      o Structured review: more formal and role-based document review
>>      performed by individuals assuming certain responsibilities (such
>>      as by WG chairs, directorate and IESG members.)
>>
>>     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-functional
>>     interactions can be spotted and dealt with, thus avoiding many
>>     "late surprises". A final review (currently done by the IESG) can
>>     catch remaining cross-functional interactions, as well as deal
>>     with overall quality issues.
>>     
>>     The WG will cooperate with others in starting and evaluating
>>     experiments with early community 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 involved in the IETF
>>     reform process on proposed changes to the IETF Working Group
>>     operations and Standards process if those are considered
>>     necessary.
>>
>>   WG milestones:
>>
>>     FEB 2004: Submit drafts on improved community and 
>>structured reviews
>>     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
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Icar mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : [e-mail]
E-mail : [e-mail]
Webpage: http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : [phone]


_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar