Re: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter

[Pekka Savola <[e-mail]>]

Comments inline.  Seems to be basically good stuff.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 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.

I've a concern on this.  There seem to be roughly two separate camps 
with completely different beliefs on what the roles inside a WG are.  
It may be a huge challenge (and difficult to the chairs) to gain 
consensus unless that means blocking out input.  But I guess this 
exercise must be done.  The concern is that we get stuck at this item 
forever, and never get any further.

>      (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?]
[...]
>      (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?]

I believe re-chartering would be appropriate, as it would keep the
charter and the WG more focused at first, and provide a checkpoint at
the later phase for the community to decide more explicitly whether
these changes are what the IETF in general wants.  However, I don't 
feel particularly strongly about this.

> [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?]

I do not think this is necessary.  Maybe you're referring to e.g., the
cases where a new document track might allow a better facilities to
the chairs from the first to assume responsibility (a bit doubtful,
but if a series not requiring IESG approval is introduced, maybe yes),
or that a different document approval process would make this easier 
(which is certainly the case)?

It seems obvious that designing (and approving) those choices are out
of scope.  But I guess what you're asking is whether it would be OK to 
discuss the requirements for such changes in this changes from the 
MPOWR perspective, and then take them to the appropriate other WG(s), 
which I took as an implicit yes.

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

I do not believe that is necessary -- all the charters will be
available under general area anyway, and folks can read every one of
them separately.  We're not living in a vacuum.  But I would not
object to such language.

> 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

The schedule (if we keep the later part of it, that is) could maybe be 
fast-tracked slightly, e.g., FEB, JUN, OCT.  Seems reasonable as long 
as someone is willing to do editing, as we should already have rough 
concensus on the major changes we want to make.

However, what's worrying me a bit is that the first last call outside 
of this WG for these change proposals is in Dec 05.  That's about 2 
years away.  Shouldn't these change proposals be brought to the 
attention earlier, if not using the Last Call procedure, at least by 
presenting them at the plenary and soliciting feedback?  Maybe that's 
a forum of communications which should be explicitly mentioned in the 
charter.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings




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