Re: [Terminology] Update to TERM charter text

Hi,

On Tuesday, April 13, 2021, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mallory,
>
> Nobody is creating a new layer. We're just running the IETF process as
> we've run it for three decades.
>
>
>
I am not questioning process or the process fairness or whether or not
anyone else is following process. I do, however, appreciate being corrected.

I am offering my view that there appears to be a choice in processes and we
may have chosen badly if I do a quick calculation:

Current process: IESG+community approval of a WG charter + production of a
document + WG+AD+IESG+Community approval.

That’s three milestones and several rounds of approvals (6?).

IS: production of a document + GA/AD sponsorship + IESG+Community approval.

That’s three milestones and 3? approvals.

IS just seems more lightweight, and ideally the AD and willing members of
the IESG could work on production, cutting down more hurdles.

Now I think IS isn’t ideal if it wouldn’t represent community consensus.
(I’ve heard others say this but surviving last call would mean consensus,
would it not?)  But since the IESG approves it, this is rather more
satisfying ime due to DEI initiatives needing some healthy degree of
leadership in order to break reactionary impasses, sometimes, as a peril of
majority rules communities.

Please be patient if I’ve gotten something wrong. I’m merely trying to
explain my prior messages and my intention more clearly.

-M

>
> On 14-Apr-21 01:40, Mallory Knodel wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Remembering that once this WG is chartered it's supposed to draft a
> document. So, aren't we making it much harder for ourselves by creating
> this abstraction layer that first needs IESG+community approval of a
> charter, and then also production of a document that will need
> WG+AD+IESG+Community approval? A document just needs GA/AD+Community
> approval once.
> >
> > -Mallory
> >
> > On 4/13/21 6:48 AM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> >> Niels,
> >>
> >> I don't understand your concern. The IETF process doesn't treat
> charters the same as drafts. It's the IESG's job to approve charters,
> because until there is a charter, there is no WG and no WG Chair. And it's
> the whole IETF's input that counts, not just the people who happened to
> propose the charter.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>   Brian
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021, 22:39 Niels ten Oever, <
> lists@digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>     On 13-04-2021 12:22, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> >>     > Unfortunately, this "problem" is not restricted to GENDISPATCH.
> I haven't even been in the IETF that long but I've seen multiple documents
> - drafts, charters, etc, be exposed to larger review and have the carefully
> crafted work of a working group be re-considered when it's exposed to a
> wider review.
> >>     >
> >>     > Indeed, this is precisely the function of an IETF last-call -
> otherwise why do we bother sending work to the IESG for review?  We could
> just deliver every piece of careful "working group last call"ed document
> directly to the RFC editor with no cross-sectional review.
> >>     >
> >>     > Of course, the flip side is that as a participant in the process,
> you can ask for the work to be brought back to GENDISPATCH to see whether
> there's consensus for the new document or not.  Or you could just object to
> charter in its current form I guess, I'm not sure how that works at IETF
> last-call stage.  One thing is for sure, the IETF processes aren't good at
> enforcing that the IETF goes ahead with the exact consensus product of a
> single working group, unchanged by wider review.
> >>
> >>     In my experience, IESG review brings up comments that are for the
> authors to fix, instead of IESG fixing them for you.
> >>
> >>     Best,
> >>
> >>     Niels
> >>
> >>     >
> >>     > Regards,
> >>     >
> >>     > Bron.
> >>     >
> >>     > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021, at 19:41, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> >>     >> Dear IESG,
> >>     >>
> >>     >> I am dismayed by the discussion in the IESG on the charter and
> the revisions that are proposed. The charter that was proposed was the
> product of long and complex discussions in GENDISPATCH. The review in the
> IESG is now rehashing those debates but changing the outcome. The changes
> in the charter are thus subvert the consensus that was carefully built. The
> proposed changes therefore undermine and jeopardize the work that the
> proposed WG could produce.
> >>     >>
> >>     >> Best,
> >>     >>
> >>     >> Niels
> >>     >>
> >>     >>
> >>     >> On 13-04-2021 08:46, Lars Eggert wrote:
> >>     >> > Hi,
> >>     >> >
> >>     >> > there is now an -05 version that rolls in some additional
> feedback received yesterday: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
> charter-ietf-term/00-05/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/charter-ietf-term/00-05/>
> >>     >> >
> >>     >> > Diff at https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%
> 2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-term%
> 2Fwithmilestones-00-04.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%
> 2Fcharter-ietf-term%2Fwithmilestones-00-05.txt <
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%
> 2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-term%
> 2Fwithmilestones-00-04.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%
> 2Fcharter-ietf-term%2Fwithmilestones-00-05.txt>
> >>     >> >
> >>     >> > Thanks,
> >>     >> > Lars
> >>     >> >
> >>     >> >
> >>     >> >
> >>     >>
> >>     >> --
> >>     >> Niels ten Oever, PhD
> >>     >> Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University
> of Amsterdam
> >>     >> Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights -
> European University Viadrina
> >>     >> Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação
> Getúlio Vargas
> >>     >>
> >>     >> https://nielstenoever.net <https://nielstenoever.net> -
> mail@nielstenoever.net <mailto:mail@nielstenoever.net> <mailto:
> mail%40nielstenoever.net <mailto:mail%2540nielstenoever.net>> -
> @nielstenoever - +31629051853
> >>     >> PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
> >>     >>
> >>     >> Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in
> New Media & Society here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/
> 1461444820929320 <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/
> 1461444820929320>
> >>     >>
> >>     >> --
> >>     >> Terminology mailing list
> >>     >> Terminology@ietf.org <mailto:Terminology@ietf.org> <mailto:
> Terminology%40ietf.org <mailto:Terminology%2540ietf.org>>
> >>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology <
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology>
> >>     >>
> >>     >
> >>     > --
> >>     >   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
> >>     >   brong@fastmailteam.com <mailto:brong@fastmailteam.com>
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>
> >>     --
> >>     Niels ten Oever, PhD
> >>     Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of
> Amsterdam
> >>     Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European
> University Viadrina
> >>     Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação
> Getúlio Vargas
> >>
> >>     https://nielstenoever.net - mail@nielstenoever.net <mailto:
> mail@nielstenoever.net> - @nielstenoever - +31629051853
> >>     PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
> >>
> >>     Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in New
> Media & Society here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/
> 1461444820929320
> >>
> >>     --
> >>     Terminology mailing list
> >>     Terminology@ietf.org <mailto:Terminology@ietf.org>
> >>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > Mallory Knodel
> > CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> > gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780
> >
>
>

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780