Re: [Icar] ICAR draft charter

Melinda, Alex, Joel, Robert-

I will post an updated charter in the next message, inline
answers below.

Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 1:41:02 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> I prefer the new, terser version.  There's still some material
> in it that could be clearer, though.  You use a lot of different
> terms to describe various kinds of reviews and it's not always
> obvious what you mean by them.  I think it would be useful to
> consolidate where possible and then define each of the terms and
> what their relationship is (I assume that some are classes of
> cross-area review, but I don't know that).

I changed the text to say "cross-functional" everywhere, leaving
cross-area only in the title, mainly because of the acronym.
My personal interpretation of the difference between the two is
that cross-functional includes cross-area and cross-WG within
an area.

I also included definitons in the beginning of the charter.

> Similarly, you say
> that the wg will cooperate with "others," but I don't know who
> "others" means.

I think we should leave this open, since those "others" may be any WG
that are willing to try and experiment with proposed mechanisms, seems
we shouldn't specify them now.

> Also, have we decided to use a wg process to
> make broader changes to IETF structure and processes?

I don't know any other one, and, as far as I know, a WG process is how
we did it the past (Scott will correct me if I'm wrong--I'm admittedly
new to the whole "process changing" saga).

> The last
> paragraph may need to change as the superstructure is defined
> more clearly by the IESG.

Sure.

Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 2:15:51 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> Cross-functional is not self-explanatory to me. I cannot send the text
> since I do not know what you mean by cross-functional. I do not see
> why adding a definition of the primary scoping term to the charter is
> "too much", especially if the definition is clear/obvious to you.

I changed the text to include definitions. Please check if it is any
better this way and propose improvements if you think they are needed.

>> > 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.

> The above does not clarify the scope. It is not clear whether the WG
> is allowed to propose changes that alter core IETF processes,
> especially if those processes affect things other than just
> cross-functional review. We must be explicit about what changes, of
> any are "allowed" or are in the work scope. Coordination with other
> WGs is fine, but does not define the scope.

I think we will need changes in the IETF review process anyways.
However, it is hard to tell now how major they will be, whether they
will affect the core IETF processes, and how those core processes
should be defined. Proposing reasonable changes should be fine as long
as we keep in mind the primary goal of this WG--to improve the review
process.

[...]

>> > 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.

> This needs to be documented explicitly. For example, "The WG is to
> evaluate IESG review function and propose IESG role and process
> changes as and if necessary". Or, alternatively, "The WG must operate
> under the assumption that the current IESG review function and role
> are not going to change much. Any changes to IESG functions and roles
> are, hence, out of the WG scope."

The approach should be, I believe, to improve the pre-IESG review
process in such a way that the IESG can make the decision quickly. On
the other hand, I could see how some details of IESG review process
may change to accommodate the new review process.

So, for this question and the question above, I don't think we should
put an explicit guideline in the charter.

>> > 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.

> I still do not know exactly what the difference is and why the two
> are a priori separated from each other.

I tried to explain this in my earlier message to the list:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/icar/current/msg00020.html

The new text also contains some info in the definitions.

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

> Since I am unsure of the intent, it is difficult for me to
> suggest specific improvements. Said that, you can consider
> replacing
>      Submit -00 draft on improved community review
>      Submit -00 draft on improved structured review
> with
>      Submit -00 draft(s) on improved IETF review

I did something like this to address this and Joel's comments.

Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 2:16:01 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Looking at the milestones, I actually hope that we will have several drafts 
> on review for consideration by the working group in February.  I would not 
> expect to see working group consensus on a single starting point.  I also 
> would not be surprised if some drafts cover both community and structured 
> review.

> Hence, I would suggest that the first two milestones be combined into:
>      FEB 2004: at least two drafts on improved review covering community 
> and structured reviews.

I changed the milestones.

Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 2:24:16 PM, Robert Snively wrote:
[...]
> I like this approach.

> I think you might be able to clarify the first paragraph a little
> bit.  As I understand it, you are actually focusing on two
> separate (and probably separable) issues with separate drafts.
> I had a bit of a problem understanding what kinds of things might
> be included in each of the drafts. [...]

Please check the new version, it may explain things better now.
Also, please see my earlier message:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/icar/current/msg00020.html

Regarding guidelines for specific drafts, I think the charter should
not have those as different people may have different ideas in mind.

I also addressed your second comment. Please see the 1st para in the
new charter.

Alex

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