Re: [ogpx] Next Steps for OGPX WG Charter

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

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?