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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi SM,

> On Jul 14, 2020, at 6:04 PM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> At 06:22 AM 14-07-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Suresh Krishnan, Russ Housley, and myself. See <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/Qls9UHKkG4kE9KKK4WQ-KBc0oLg/>.
>> 
>> >
>> >  2. Who approved the draft charter?
>> 
>> The IESG.
> 
> I find it awkward to broach the following subject as you are an Area Director.  You may have noticed that I have zero support.

Maybe the better path at this point would be for you to appeal whichever actions I took that you find objectionable, that way I can recuse from the process and the rest of the IESG can handle it. Typically if people email me directly I assume they expect me to respond, but if I’m recused that will take me out of the loop.

> 
> A person cannot be both judge and jury.  Within an IETF context, a person cannot be both the author and reviewer of a document; an Area Director cannot sponsor his/her own draft.  The reason is that it would create a conflict of interest.  In my opinion, writing the draft charter and approving it creates a potential conflict of interest.
> 
>> There didn't seem to be any outstanding requests for changes to the charter text that would prevent its approval.
> 
> The definition of a charter is that it is a contract between a working group and the IETF to perform a set of tasks.  The milestones are part of the charter text.

I apologized for forgetting them. I forget things sometimes. I’m not sure what else I can do besides apologize again for being forgetful.

> 
>> >  4. Are the milestones listed at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/UB3zrC22s1B89PEwAOM-Y488TRs/
>> >     compliant with RFC 2418?
>> 
>> Yes.
> 
> I read RFC 2418 again.  It states that the basis for forming a working group is when the prospective Chair(s) and Area Director are satisfied with the charter form and content.  The RFC also states that milestones shall consist of deliverables that can be qualified as showing specific achievement.  A deliverable is a result.  In this case, it would be the result(s) produced by the working group, e.g. send draft to IESG by December 2020.  In my opinion, the milestones and the draft charter are not compliant with RFC 2418.

Ok. I think the chairs and I were just following typical practice. Lots of the WGs chartered in the last year don’t meet the criteria you specify above:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/webtrans/about/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/wpack/about/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/drip/about/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mops/about/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/gnap/about/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lake/about/

Cheers,
Alissa

> 
> It does not make sense to go ahead with the working group approval while the draft charter for that working group is under (formal) dispute.  It is as if the decision is/will be valid even though there is a dispute about that decision.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy