Re: [MLS] recharter text

Chiming in a bit late, but seconding Britta, I’m also okay with the charter as long as we take „common operational patterns“ to include subgroups scope-wise.

Cheers,
Konrad

> Am 01.12.2023 um 15:34 schrieb Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>:
> 
> I think that the “framework for safe extensions” covers the 1st.
> 
> I missed the “user trees” comment (sorry about that), but does it fit under one of the existing bullets?
> 
> spt
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2023, at 08:50, Raphael Robert <ietf@raphaelrobert.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry for chiming in late on this. As noted before (thanks Brendan), there are two items for which we have good consensus and that are being worked on actively:
>> 
>> - safe extensions
>> - user trees
>> 
>> Neither is currently covered by the 01-01 charter. Given how far along we are in the process, this should already be covered now and not in 6 months from now.
>> Beyond that, if regular rechartering is an option, I think we should go for it and reconsider things in 6-12 months.
>> 
>> Raphael
>> 
>>> On 29. Nov 2023, at 14:30, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we've got enough specific items on the list to keep us busy for a while.  As Paul says, rechartering is (pretty) cheap, so let's tick off some of the items we have and then we can add more.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:42 PM Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Sean Turner wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 10, 2023, at 14:59, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 11:29 AM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi! As discussed at the IWTF 118 session, the revised charter text can be found here:
>>>>>> https://github.com/mlswg/wg-materials/tree/main/wg-charter
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Richard has already provided extension related text, i.e., listing the extensions we are going to work on:
>>>>>> https://github.com/mlswg/wg-materials/pull/14.
>>>>>> Please let us know here or in the repo whether you agree with the list of extensions. And, note that doing work on other extensions is likely going to require a recharter so let’s try to get this list right.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does a saving clause of "such other extensions as the working group
>>>>> consensus deems advisable" sound good?  While I see from the record
>>>>> EKR wanted some scoping, I think having an explicit list of things to
>>>>> work on and then others is good enough.
>>>> 
>>>> I am concerned that somebody on the IESG might think of this as a blank check. I also really want to see if we can work through the existing set of extensions and then maybe recharter to something a little more loose.
>>> 
>>> And by somebody, Sean specifically means me, your friendly neighbourhood AD :)
>>> 
>>> Rechartering is cheap, so these clauses are not needed. And it allows
>>> (read: forces) the WG a bit more structure to complete older ideas before
>>> moving onto the next new shiny thing. Because, SQUIRREL!
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MLS mailing list
>>> MLS@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MLS mailing list
>>> MLS@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MLS mailing list
> MLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls