Re: [Sml] IETF 116 follow up / Draft charter

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 6/30/2023 6:00 AM, Hans-Joerg Happel wrote:
> On 29.06.23 19:31, John Levine wrote:
>> ...
>>> On 6/29/2023 8:29 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>>> Can we add a sentence or two on how this is different from MIME, to
>>>> set context for people not already involved in the work?
>> It's not clear to me whether the goal is to standardize the JSON
>> embedded in web pages as currently implemented, or to come up with
>> some MIME containers that are less of a kludge, or something else.
>
> We already discussed this in some detail on this list (e.g., your 
> mail/s from 11th of March).
>
> I'd say, this aspect should not be predetermined by the charter, but 
> be subject to discussion in the WG. 


The more open-ended a working group charter, the more likely it will get 
bogged down on basic issues.

A charter should make very clear what problem it is solving and why it 
needs solving.  And by clear, I mean clear to a reader with no 
background in the topic, because charters are read by a very wide range 
of folk.  And by why I mean a justification that is compelling enough so 
that those readers will generally agree that this is a good thing to 
work on, because they can understand how the work will get used.

Sometimes it is good for a charter to provide little technical 
direction. However on the average I believe an IETF working group that 
begins with a charter that is completely open-ended in terms of 
technical direction is one that has not yet shown enough community 
involvement to be likely to succeed in a timely fashion.  It might be 
productive, but the risk it won't be is, IMO, much higher.

That is, I generally suggest that a working group be chartered only 
after the work has demonstrable momentum.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@[e-mail]