Re: [Icar] ICAR draft charter

[Alex Rousskov <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Alex Zinin wrote:

> > 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.

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.

> > 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.

For example, is it in scope of this WG to discuss enforcement of
review rules, such as that all comments must be recorded and addressed
or that coverage criteria must be satisfied? Is it in scope of this WG
to discuss IETF document management system and propose changes that
affect areas other than review (e.g., registration of IETF
participants to access the system)? Is it in scope of this WG to
discuss whether WG chairs can and should say "no" to already reviewed
drafts if their own review contradicts others opinions? Etc.

These are just random examples to illustrate the scoping problem.
Addressing each example in isolation does not address the problem.

> > 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."

> > 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.

> 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

> > 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.

The above questions are not an implication of a problem, but an
invitation to other IETFers to discuss whether we are eating our own
dog food with this charter. I hope that, for example, Dave can review
the deadlines and indicate whether they satisfy his usefulness
criteria.

Alex.

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar