Re: [therightkey] Draft charter for a Transparency Working Group

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 01/07/2014 04:17 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> On 7 January 2014 16:05, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> The deadline for meeting session requests in London is coming
>> up.
>>
>> What I propose to do is to request a placeholder-BoF session
>> for this proposed WG. That doesn't mean there'll be a BoF.
>> It means that if a WG has been formed in time then there'll
>> be a WG session. If WG formation doesn't look to me like
>> its happening (or if the IESG/IAB push back a lot) then I'll
>> cancel the session and there'll be no transparency session
>> in London. The call when that decision is made will be on
>> about Jan 20.
>>
>> So, please get the WG stuff moving along soon now if you
>> want to proceed. Ideally, that'd mean some drafts would
>> exist as well as the draft WG charter, before that call on
>> about Jan 20. But a good charter plus RFC 6962 might be
>> enough.
> 
> Revised charter posted. I am travelling for most of now til Jan 20, so
> I doubt I'll have a a 6962bis draft, I'm afraid. But we are committed
> to producing one.
> 
> There are no other work items currently proposed, hence no other
> drafts expected (unless someone has an alternate proposal).

Boy that was quick!

As far as I can see this proposal does seem to have enough
backing to start the WG formation process.

What I'll do is kick that off with Ben's revised charter
text say at the end of the week, so please comment on the
"revised draft charter" thread if you've edits to that to
propose.

If you're opposed to the formation of such a WG or in favour
but haven't previously said so, please do post to that same
thread saying why.

Thanks,
S.


> 
>