Re: [Terminology] Update to TERM charter text

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2021-4-13, at 16:47, Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 13-04-2021 12:51, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> 
>> when it comes to documents, yes. But not usually when it comes to charter text. Since it's the responsible ADs who are in charge of scoping the work in their area, it is usually them that edit charter text, especially if the chartering is somewhat contentious.
> 
> Which is fine - but I wanted to indicate that changing the charter now and in this manner (in a particular direction that was extensively discussed earlier in the process), will probably make the reaching of consensus on a document to be produced by this WG much harder.

that's a valid concern. But I want to stress that we're not doing anything out of the ordinary here. The charter has been discussed in gendispatch, and consensus for a way forward was established in gendispatch, i.e., that a WG should be formed on the basis of the charter text that was discussed there.

The next step in the formation of a WG is usually a BOF, followed by IESG (internal) and then IETF (external) review of the charter. Since we had a BOF-like discussion in gendispatch, we skipped the BOF and went straight to internal and most recently external review.

Often, no significant comments are received and a WG is chartered with only minor tweaks to the charter proposal that was sent out for review. In this case, the IESG received quite a bit of very polarized comments, and as the responsible AD for the area I am attempting to reflect those pieces of feedback in the charter update for which I see some level of consensus. I'm doing this in the hopes that this will make the overall charter gain rough consensus when it goes out again for external review.

I'm hoping this explains the process a bit more.

Thanks,
Lars