Re: [ogpx] Next Steps for OGPX WG Charter

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

k. thx for the info. especially the last bit about people comparing
goals and achievements.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Alexey
Melnikov<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Infinity Linden wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Dave CROCKER<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> [stuff removed]
>>
>
> [even more stuff removed]
>
>>>> 3. The text of the charter should have a clear list of working group
>>>> deliverables.
>>>
>>> The current draft does not specify what existing documents it is drawing
>>> from,
>>> what it will/might/must do with them, nor what the limits on modification
>>> to
>>> those documents are -- if any.
>>>
>>
>> hmm... i had thought i had some advice from someone to remove the list
>> of drafts we're basing the current definition of "the protocol
>> formerly known as OGP." but for the record... we have two sets of
>> documents: first, the internet drafts that have been circulating over
>> the last 6 months or so. the list of these drafts is on the mailing
>> list and at
>> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Infinity_Linden/IETF_Drafts_and_Meetings
>> . second, are the previous wiki pages from last summer's interop work.
>> the IETF drafts were distillations of what we learned from the work
>> last summer. they're supposed to reflect the state of the protocol
>> that was actually deployed last summer.
>>
> Frequently WG Charters contain a list of documents used as the starting
> point. This helps to emphasize that you are not starting from scratch.
>
>> also... are we really going to have the "what are the limits on IETF
>> modification?" discussion again?
>>
> I don't think we need to have this discussion again, we just need to
> document what you and others said several times.
>
> This is one of the things that both IESG and IAB will be asking about,
> because disagreement on which changes can and can't be done lead to failure
> of multiple WGs that tried to bring in work to IETF.
> [...]
>
>>>> 9. Ensure that while the charter scopes down the Virtual World problem
>>>> space, it does it in an inclusive way rather than focusing on what is
>>>> out of
>>>> scope and thus indecipherable to non-subject matter experts. It is
>>>> expected
>>>> that output of the WG may be useful in scenarios beyond those
>>>> specifically
>>>> under consideration, much as RFC 2068 is not simply used for hypertext.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This type of goal is often present, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen
>>> any
>>> chartering text about it that had any meaning or any impact.  For
>>> example,
>>> what objective criteria could the IESG apply during document approval, to
>>> tell whether the goal has been satisfied?
>>>
>> hmm. are you implying that the IESG will get upset if our work product
>> is used for something other than virtual world simulation?
>>
> To answer this specific question: unlikely.
>
>> i don't
>> think you are. i fear that turning the charter into a feature list of
>> virtual worlds isn't the answer either (though it would make it easier
>> to verify.)
>>
>
> IESG is frequently looking at charters to verify if WGs produced what they
> promised to produce.
> A mismatch between the charter text and end result might be a symptom of a
> trouble.
>
> Of course it doesn't mean that the charter needs to document every
> restriction. The group might not know or might not agree on them before
> starting work.
>
> Does this help?
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>