Re: [Sidrops] Requiring Two Implementations - before exit of WGLC

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Job:

The SIDRops WG Chairs discussed this today.  We want to make it an informal policy for at least three documents.  Then, if there are no surprises, we will update the charter to reflect the requirement for two interoperable implementations before sending a document form the WG to the IESG.

For the SIDRops WG Chairs,
 Russ



> On Nov 9, 2023, at 8:49 AM, Job Snijders <job=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Warren,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 05:31:30AM -0800, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> So, I had understood that all this was being modeled on IDR, so I want
>> to go see if we could just seal text from their charter / figure out
>> how they had navigated this… only to discover that it isn't actually
>> *in* their charter…
>> 
>> So, I asked the IESG, and John says that this is actually tradition,
>> not charter… seeing as everyone understands it in IDR (and I think
>> that many of us assumed that it was in the charter), perhaps that's
>> good enough?  Write it up and put it in the wiki?
>> 
>> This allows us to follow "Do the right thing" and not get wrapped
>> around the axle on process/charter language — can someone convince my
>> why I'm wrong here?
> 
> I strongly believe we need to write this down somewhere and the charter
> forms the essence of this working group; it's nice for newcomers to have
> something to base their participation on, or to point longerstanding
> participants to "remember, we agreed to this".
> 
> Updating the charter is not *that* much work, right?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job