Re: [MLS] recharter text

["Hale, Britta (CIV)" <[e-mail]>]

One comment on this:

I'd also like to see a call-out to work on support for the "user trees" idea that was mentioned during the meeting.

> While I am super excited about this, we don't even have an internet draft yet. Maybe we could finish some of the work that is close to publication, and then add this? I like the idea of doing a lite recharter every 6 months, and I think this would be consistent with that approach.


While keeping a short list of focus items would be nice – assuming that recharting is indeed a swift and easy painless process doable every 6 months – I add the caveat that the current proposed list may not be fully reflective of the WG’s interest. I.e., having an existent draft shows support from the WG, but not the priorities of the WG.

Also, confining the shortlist such that it does not include topics that have been widely received as interesting in the WG is unlikely to succeed in active participation on those shortlisted items (i.e., forced completion for existent drafts only). There are other considerations as well, e.g., if there has not been a lot of comments on a given draft, is that draft really interesting to the WG widely? Should completion of it hold up progress on other items? If people are not commenting on a draft very actively, perhaps there are subtleties that have not been worked out and it would gather more refinement during the process of other active work.

In short, if we are going to make a shortlist of target items that currently leaves some of the WG discussed topics out of scope, then what goes into that should be voted (by line item). That will help to accurately set priorities that mirror what the WG is generally willing to devote time towards vs draft status.

Personally, it does not seem to be a distraction to include the other topics discussed with interest in the WG (~3 items?) in the rechartering now. Compared to the 12 items currently listed in (https://github.com/mlswg/wg-materials/pull/14), that is not a substantial addition and fit under various described focus directions.


Britta