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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 3:24 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On this point:
>
> > One of reasons for not to tackling a topic is if there isn't any
> expertise in the IETF to work on that.  It is the responsibility of the
> Internet Architecture Board (IAB) to provide advice on that and it is up to
> the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) to give its approval for the
> work to proceed.  The latest IAB minutes, which are dated May 27, does not
> show any review of the proposed charter.  Will the IAB review the proposed
> charter before it is approved by the IESG?
>
> IAB members can review proposed charters during community review process
> but there is no formal step for the IAB to review all proposed charters.


There is a difference between IAB review and community review, as the IAB
review takes place during the "internal review" phase, rather than the
"external review" phase, at least according to this process:

As of the time of writing, all proposed working group charters are sent to
the IAB (“sent for Internal Review”) before being sent to the broader
community (“sent for External Review”). When a proposed charter is sent for
External Review, it goes via the IETF-Announce mailing list to the entire
IETF community and via the New-Work mailing list to a number of other SDOs
that have liaison relationships with IETF, so External Review is very
public.

 (from
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2012-2/iab-member-roles-in-evaluating-new-work-proposals/
).

While that may not be a "formal step", it's probably worth keeping in mind,
as some elements of a proposal may change during internal review.

regards,

Ted Hardie

I'm not sure why you may think this is especially needed in this case given
> meeting planning lies in responsibility of the IESG (or LCC with respect to
> financial and contractual aspects)…?
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> > On 27. Jun 2020, at 14:30, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group,
> > At 09:20 AM 26-06-2020, The IESG wrote:
> >> A new IETF WG has been proposed in the General Area. The IESG has not
> made
> >> any determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
> >> provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to
> the
> >
> > I would like to thank Mr Kaduk for taking the time to respond to my
> comment [1] about the proposed charter.
> >
> > I read an extract of a book about "shmoo" after seeing a comment [2]
> about it.  The cultural reference to class issues is quite interesting for
> an organization which advertizes itself as a "large open international
> community".  The proposed charter was discussed on a mailing list which is
> described as: "a design team list to identify issues that would arise
> should an IETF meeting ever be held with O(1000) 'remote' participants".
>  Was there any public report from the design team?
> >
> > It is unfortunate that the "design team" has decided not to consider the
> potential impact of maintaining two classes of "participants".  The
> disregard for the topic is a good indicator of whether words such as
> "inclusiveness" can be taken seriously.
> >
> > One of reasons for not to tackling a topic is if there isn't any
> expertise in the IETF to work on that.  It is the responsibility of the
> Internet Architecture Board (IAB) to provide advice on that and it is up to
> the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) to give its approval for the
> work to proceed.  The latest IAB minutes, which are dated May 27, does not
> show any review of the proposed charter.  Will the IAB review the proposed
> charter before it is approved by the IESG?
> >
> > The proposed charter has "TBD" under "milestones".  That is not
> compliant with the contract which the proposed working group is seeking.
> >
> > Will the "high-level principles" be about hopes or ambitions to achieve
> something?
> >
> > The "experience of handling meeting planning" is something internal to
> the IESG.  Is that documented anywhere?  Is that even relevant given that
> the proposed group was not involved in meeting planning?
> >
> > Why is the proposed group proposing to work on "functional
> requirements"?  Isn't that the work of the IETF Administration LLC?
> >
> > Some parts of the proposed charter such as "cadence of meeting
> scheduling ..." sounds like MTGVENUE-bis as that (concluded) group
> previously worked on that.  The group was closed in March.  Does that mean
> that the previous work caused some issues which was only noticed three
> months after the MTGVENUE working group was closed?
> >
> > Does the cadence of meeting scheduling affect NomCom eligibility?  Did
> meeting planning have an impact on NomCom eligibility?
> >
> > Regards,
> > S. Moonesamy
> >
> > 1.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/-KT9e9MkDgDpHS57La9f5IxMSNI/
> > 2.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/uQdAjhubeYVoIOP_CWd4O_xSYkQ/
> >
>
>