RE: IDR WG charter

["Abarbanel, Benjamin" <[e-mail]>]

Alex:

> 
> I think you're misinterpreting. Please read on.
> 
> >  Not advancement to RFC status. E.G. INFORM spec.
> > That is what the issue at hand is.
> 
>  There's two pieces here:
>  
>   1) Sorting out the existing work load. Here we would like to see the
>      base spec finished by the WG and approved by the IESG (i.e., all
>      review cycles completed) before other items are progressed.
> 
>   2) Taking on new work. This is more long term. Here, acceptance
>      of an ID as a WG item requires a related work item in 
> the charter.
>      If no such item exists, the charter needs to be updated. This
>      normally triggers negotiation with the ADs and the IESG 
> and review
>      of the WG progress. Given point 1) above, a work item 
> would really
>      have to be urgent and of high priority for us to be able 
> to explain
>      why we're adding more stuff when we're not yet finished with the
>      main objective. [*]
>
Maybe we are making too much out of this thing. I dont know why we have 
to vote on this. Its clearly an ADs right to decide this. 
 
Ben