[Icar] Re: ICAR charter scope and review management

It is possible that you did not intend as large a scope as I read your 
comments as covering.  If so, I apologize.

Mandating that issues raised in ICAR describe reviews must be responded to 
in some fashion by the working group is something within charter for ICAR 
to say.

Mandating that a WG must respond formally and on record to all comments it 
receives at any point in its work may or may not be a good idea, but is a 
working group process question, not a cross-area review question.  I had 
read your (elided for brevity) comments as calling for the later.  I 
apologize if the error was in my reading.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 02:42 PM 5/19/2004 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>On Wed, 19 May 2004, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
> > Most of these comments, while fair concerns, seem to be primarily
> > addressed to the general question of how working groups manage
> > comments.  General working group process is probably outside of the
> > scope of this working group.
>
>The charter seems to place any mechanism that encourages review of
>documents in scope. There is probably nothing more discouraging than
>seeing your comments ignored!
>
> > PS: To be specific, I do not think that the ICAR working group can
> > direct that working groups should (much less must) have problem
> > trackers, and should (or must) address all comments received,
> > regardless of source.
>
>I do not see why not. The charter does not seem to place such
>essential mechanisms out of scope. Am I missing something?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alex.

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