RE: [Icar] ICAR draft charter

As I thought about this, there is one other thing that
should be addressed.  It seems to me to be important to include
at least the obvious liaison requirements explicitly in
the charter.  Certainly, the "problem" working group's results 
should be explicitly included as inputs to the working group.
There may be others that I am not aware of that should
also be included.  If we leave out these known liaison activities,
we run the risk of replicating already completed work (and
even coming out with conflicting conclusions).

I would propose that the last paragraph of the WG
description be extended as follows:

	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.  The working group will, as part of
	its charter, address the relevant parts of the "problem" working
	group's results.

Bob Snively
+1 408 333 8135

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:25 PM
> To: icar@ietf.org
> Subject: [Icar] ICAR draft charter
> 
> 
> 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