Re: [Terminology] Update to TERM charter text

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Mallory,

Nobody is creating a new layer. We're just running the IETF process as we've run it for three decades.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

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, <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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> - [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:mail%40nielstenoever.net <mailto:mail%2540nielstenoever.net>> - @nielstenoever - [phone]
>>     >> 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
>>     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <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
>>     >   [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>     -- 
>>     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 - [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> - @nielstenoever - [phone]
>>     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
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     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
>