Re: [Terminology] Update to TERM charter text

Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org> Tue, 13 April 2021 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lists@digitaldissidents.org>
X-Original-To: terminology@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: terminology@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D62C3A18FB for <terminology@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pA3TVnCdMAnQ for <terminology@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18B853A18F6 for <terminology@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 07:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: terminology@ietf.org
References: <8143F715-9D83-4C15-B441-D0D8CA302C50@eggert.org> <D5FEBE8C-14D4-48BD-AAE7-9436E296CB7E@eggert.org> <ed88e91a-1224-4918-710e-dfe6e5c89df4@digitaldissidents.org> <9191f3bd-d52a-4fa4-b117-79b3bb517cdf@www.fastmail.com> <6a54335a-b033-60a1-a431-ba92954527cc@digitaldissidents.org> <F89896BC-7654-4EF0-99FF-43C2E1AB74E8@eggert.org> <31add831-4c5f-315d-3070-1633cdcd032b@digitaldissidents.org> <9CC26797-B2EF-4E24-8F48-09DEDF8F6697@eggert.org>
From: Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>
Message-ID: <4623ddf1-7993-b1ff-cc94-d4b5880b01b7@digitaldissidents.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:21:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9CC26797-B2EF-4E24-8F48-09DEDF8F6697@eggert.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 29cc722430e8f1f6ed904119444c0d49b0f3ee91
X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.greenhost.nl
X-Scan-Signature: 2394e6fd9f1e9f86011669f8146dc264
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/m6PvBYGzbjEpaNtulaUVSdi00aI>
Subject: Re: [Terminology] Update to TERM charter text
X-BeenThere: terminology@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents <terminology.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/terminology>, <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/terminology/>
List-Post: <mailto:terminology@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology>, <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:21:51 -0000

On 13-04-2021 15:56, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2021-4-13, at 16:47, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org> 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.

That's nice - I had not realized the charter will go out for external review again. Thanks a lot for that clarification!

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

It indeed does, thanks a lot!

Best,

Niels

> 
> 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 - 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