Re: [Icar] ICAR draft charter rev 2

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Alex Zinin wrote:
> Revision 2 below, please.

Yes, this seems to be good.  

Even though I'm not sure whether forming the WG is necessarily the
required condition for progressing Improved Cross-Area Review, it is
probably a sufficient, and the most logical one (unless the IESG just
decided to adopt a model, but as there was all kinds of weird pushback
in Minneapolis, perhaps this is required :-).

As for the milestones:

     FEB 2004: Submit drafts on improved community and structured reviews

==> what does "Submit" mean here?  Submit as personal I-Ds?  Publish 
as WG I-D's (if so, say so)?

For what it's worth, I'm not 100% sure we can decide, with this 
aggressive timescale, which of the current individual submissions 
would be best adopted as WG items (or combined as new proposals to be 
submitted as WG items)?  Maybe you could clarify what kind of process 
you had in mind here?

     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

==> Was the last one meant to be SEP 200_4_?

For what it's worth, it may be very difficult to find ways to improve
community review as it is -- I don't believe there have been many
proposals on that yet.  

Luckily, finding a solution for structured community review (e.g., by
adding those responsibilities for reviewing documents) has already 
sparked at least a couple of good proposals, and progressing with that 
should be much easier.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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