Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sun, 19 February 2017 00:41 UTC

From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <EF9DE86E-C964-4E92-BA48-B1555786C19B@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_76357102-0246-4D44-A253-9BF6B83FDC16"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 19:41:20 -0500
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20170218152825.0c4d7d68@elandnews.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com> <00e13499-7cea-a79a-7de1-dd9bad4bc530@dcrocker.net> <20170214060156.73B32639AEDF@rock.dv.isc.org> <0A3B2FF0-8F1C-430E-B4ED-DFA4CDB1FDB3@gmail.com> <0FB75520-E0BA-453C-8CF6-9F2D05B95FD6@fugue.com> <76d4aff3-760c-b258-a4e5-426ba69923f7@dcrocker.net> <84E813AE-6BD6-4EC3-A8CD-8AB24C9857D2@qti.qualcomm.com> <20170215025055.GW10525@verdi> <6.2.5.6.2.20170218010720.0b845c18@elandnews.com> <AB7BB4019CE95D16CA7B0B8D@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20170218152825.0c4d7d68@elandnews.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CgEVevUIekzDoT3e8kY_AwOm4UE>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

On Feb 18, 2017, at 6:59 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> It is up to the Working Group Chair and Responsible Area Director to assess whether the WG output falls within the WG Charter.

This is technically true, but it's worth pointing out that working group charters are approved first by the IETF, and only _then_ by the IESG.   If the IESG decides that the working group charter is much broader than the IETF agreed it is, then that is a process failure. 

In practice the IETF often leaves these issues entirely to the IESG, so in practice this isn't necessarily a problem, but in principle it is, and you can't know whether the IETF said nothing about a charter because we agreed with the scope, or because we didn't look at it; in the former case, the IETF actually does have a position on the scope of the charter—it's just unstated, because it agrees with what was proposed.   Going beyond that scope would definitely be a process failure.

To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Dave Crocker
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Mark Andrews
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Yoav Nir
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John C Klensin
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Stewart Bryant
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Dave Crocker
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Joel M. Halpern
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Dave Crocker
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John Levine
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Brian E Carpenter
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John C Klensin
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Pete Resnick
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Randall Gellens
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Joel M. Halpern
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" George Michaelson
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John Leslie
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Yoav Nir
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" S Moonesamy
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John C Klensin
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" S Moonesamy
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Ted Lemon
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" John C Klensin
Why do we have working group charters (was: To "l… S Moonesamy
Re: Why do we have working group charters (was: T… Ted Lemon
Re: Why do we have working group charters (was: T… John C Klensin
Re: To "lose the argument in the WG" Joe Touch