Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mr Rescorla,
At 03:57 PM 14-07-2020, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>Ignoring the rest of your message, this simply does not comport with either
>existing practice or 2418, which explicitly states:
>
>   The formation of a working group requires a charter which is
>    primarily negotiated between a prospective working group Chair and
>    the relevant Area Director(s), although final approval is made by the
>    IESG with advice from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).
>
>While you may wish that the IETF process didn't allow the AD to 
>write the charter, the plain text here says otherwise.

My comment was not about what I wish.  It was about one of the 
documents referenced by the "Note Well".  I looked up the word 
"comport" in Merriam-Webster to understand it: "to be in agreement on 
every point".  The meaning of "negotiated" is: "to bring about 
through discussion and compromise".  If I go by what is written, it 
would mean that the advice from the Internet Architecture Board is 
not optional.  There were some messages about that on the thread.

I don't see anything in the text which you quoted which forbids the 
relevant Area Director from writing the draft charter.  It was 
difficult to find the response to the last "appeal" as it is not 
published on the IETF web site.  This is part of a sentence from that 
response: "a named contributor handling the WG process can be 
perceived as a potential conflict of interest".

I did a quick search for other cases: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/AaYxebF1iasZipi-zKMhUmCuwtU/ 
In that thread, there was a disagreement(s) on a part(s) of the 
proposal.  From what I understand, it was addressed through 
discussion.  My understanding of that is that it fits within the text 
which you quoted.

There are three questions:

   (a) Does the IETF process, as referenced in the "Note Well", allow 
the relevant
       Area Director(s) to write a draft charter?

   (b) Does the IETF process, as referenced in the "Note Well", allow 
the relevant
       Area Director(s) to vote on a draft charter?

   (c) Does the IETF process, as referenced in the "Note Well", allow 
the IESG to
       approve a charter?

A mailing list subscriber who only participates on the mailing list 
could find it difficult to question or disagree with a proposal from 
an Area Director.  In my opinion, it is okay to do (a) or (b) but not 
both.  The rationale is to avoid the perception of a potential 
conflict of interest and also to avoid creating a perception that the 
draft charter is being imposed by the Area Director.  I am okay with (c).

In my opinion, (written) rules should reflect existing practice or 
else they end up fostering an environment of "double standards".  As 
a side comment, I noticed the following on the IETF web site: "Or 
sometimes you will get a reply from someone whose first language is 
not English, and they can be rude without intending it." [1]  My 
experience is the reverse.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. According to the British Council, it is alleged that a 
lexicographer named Noah Webster changed how the words were spelled 
to make the American version different of English from the British as 
a way of showing cultural independence from its mother country.