[mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

We have written a strawman MPOWR charter (see below).  This
charter is still quite rough and includes several open
questions that are included in the text of the charter.

There is also still an open question regarding whether there
is community support to form a WG in this area at all, but we
thought that a strawman charter might help us to focus our
mailing list discussions.  We are also planning to request a
BOF on this topic in Seoul.

Your feedback on the attached charter would be appreciated.

Thomas Narten and Margaret Wasserman


Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results (mpowr)

[Version 03]

Chair(s):
TBD

General Area Director:
Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>

General Area Advisor:
Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [e-mail]
To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr
Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/mpowr

Description of Working Group:

The MPOWR WG has two broad goals: (1) to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of WG chairs, document editors and other WG
participants, and (2) to shift more work and responsibility from the
IESG to WG chairs, in those cases where doing so is likely to improve
the overall work flow while still ensuring appropriate accountability
to the IETF as a whole. As an example, it may be appropriate for WGs
to more formally demonstrate that their documents have been adequately
reviewed prior to having them be advanced.

The MPOWR WG may choose to publish BCPs that update RFC 2418 and/or
section 6 of RFC 2026, as needed to enact these clarifications or
changes.

The work of this group will follow a three stage process:

     (1) Reach a common understanding of the current roles and
         responsibilities of various parties (IESG, WG Chairs,
         Document Authors/Editors, WG participants) within IETF
         WGs, including how and if our current roles and
         responsibilities differ from those documented in RFCs
         2418 and 2026.

     (2) Determine if changes are needed to our roles and
         responsibilities.  If so, determine what changes are
         required, whether or not the changes require updates
         to RFCs 2418 or 2026, what the benefits of those
         changes are expected to be, and what impacts those
         changes may have on accountability, workload and
         participant motivation.

     (3) If the community believes that it is necessary
         and advisable, publish BCPs that update RFC 2418
         and/or RFC 2026 (section 6) to clarify or modify
         our roles and responsibilities. [Question: Should
         the WG be chartered for this task up-front, or
         should the WG be re-chartered if it decides that
         this step is necessary?]

This group will take an incremental approach to change, considering
each proposed change separately and deciding whether or not to enact
it.  The group may later merge any changes that require BCP updates
into a single pair of RFC 2418bis and RFC 2026bis documents.

The WG is expected to produce the following work items (as needed):

     (1) An (Informational or BCP?) RFC describing the current
         roles and responsibilities of IESG members, WG chairs,
         Document Editors/Authors and WGs. This document should
         offer a high-level description of these roles, similar
         to the current descriptions in RFC 2418 (sections 1.2
         and 6) and RFC 2026 (section 6).

     (2) A set of Internet Drafts proposing specific
         changes to IETF roles and responsibilities that
         will increase the effectiveness of the organization
         and move some responsibilities from the IESG
         to a wider group of IETF participants (such as
         WG Chairs, authors/editors or other WG participants).

         Each I-D should include an analysis of the proposed
         change describing what impact the change is expected
         to have on accountability, workload and participant
         motivation.  Each I-D should also make it clear whether
         the change would require updates to the BCPs or could
         be achieved through procedural or cultural/attitude
         changes without requiring changes to the current BCPs.
         The WG may decide, on a case-by-case basis, to publish
         some of these I-Ds as Informational RFCs.

     (3) If the WG believes it is necessary, a set of BCP RFCs
         updating RFC 2418 and section 6 of RFC 2026 may be
         produced to update, clarify and/or modify the
         organizational and process roles of various parties
         within the IETF.

     (4) If the WG believes it is necessary, an updated version
         of work item (1) may be produced, documenting the
         desired roles of various parties within the IETF.

[Question: Should we omit items 3 and 4 from this charter and
indicate that the group should re-charter if these are
considered necessary?  Or include them now?]

It would be a perfectly acceptable outcome for this WG to determine,
after completing the first and second work items, that no updates to
RFC 2418, RFC 2026 or work item (1) are required.

[Question:  Should we add wording to limit the scope of the
changes that this WG is chartered to consider?  For instance,
should we explicitly state that this WG is not expected to
make changes to the document track or the document approval
process?]

[Question:  Should we including any wording about how this
WG relates to the ICAR and NEWTRK efforts?]

Goals and Milestones:

[JAN 04      Community discussion of WG scope and goals]
[FEB/MAR 04  WG chartered, if appropriate]

MAY 04       Current Roles and Resp published as WG I-D
JUL 04       First round of Change Proposals published as
                  individual I-Ds for WG consideration
AUG 04       First WG Last Call on Current Roles and Resp
SEP 04       First round of Change Proposals published as WG I-Ds
OCT 04       Current Roles and Resp submitted to IESG for Info
DEC 04       WG consensus achieved on Change Proposals
FEB 05       RFC 2418bis published as WG I-D
FEB 05       RFC 2026bis published as WG I-D
AUG 05       First WG Last Call on RFC 2418bis
AUG 05       First WG Last Call on RFC 2026bis
DEC 05       RFC 2418bis submitted to IESG for BCP
DEC 05       RFC 2026bis submitted to IESG for BCP

   


_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr