Re: [Icar] ICAR draft charter

Alex,

> 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?

I did read your comments and some of them were addressed, some
weren't. See below:

> a) The scope of the WG is unclear or wrong. "Cross-area" scope is too
>    narrow (assuming formal IETF areas are implied). "Cross-functional"
>    scope is undefined in the proposed charter. It is not clear
>    whether "cross-functional" predicate eliminates something useful.

"cross-functional" seems to be quite self-explanatory to me and
adding a vocabulary to the charter would be too much, I think.
If you have a wording suggestion, please send the text.

> b) The playing space for the WG is undefined: it is not clear whether
>    the WG is allowed to propose changes to core IETF processes, rules,
>    and roles and, if yes, which processes/rules/roles are in change
>    scope.

The charter says:

     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.

> c) The charter assumes that "IESG review function" remains mostly
>    unchanged. There is currently no IETF consensus whether that
>    function needs to change, IMO. Even some of the quoted drafts
>    seem to imply significant changes to IESG review function.

I don't see how I could address this comment. Since there's no
consensus on this issue, we can't say the WG will change the IESG
review function. However, in the process of discussion, the WG may
very well reach consensus that such change is a good idea and it may
recommend a certain process change.

> d) The implied difference between "peer" and "structural" is unclear
>    to me. Define and contrast both terms better since your milestones
>    depend on the difference. Furthermore, an a priory assumption of
>    separation between "peer" and "structural"  review may hinder WG
>    creativity.

I changed the text to say:

              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.

If you have a suggestion that would improve the text, please
send your wording.

> Please advice.

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

If you have a problem with the milestones, please explain what it is
and how you believe it should be fixed.

Thank you.

Alex

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