Hi, Personally, I would like to see deltas kept for updated charters, especially the milestone information, so we can go back and find out how timely a WG has achieved its completed objectives.
When I try to determine whether participating in a WG seems justified, one thing I want to know is whether that WG if effective. Not being able to see when a milestone was supposed to be completed versus when it was completed makes that harder to determine. And when a re-charter causes the old milestones to disappear, we are throwing away useful information. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:40 PM > To: i...@ietf.org > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: meta-issues on charter discussions (was: Re: WG > Review: Recharter ofInternationalized Domain Names > inApplications, Revised (idnabis)) > > Dear IESG, > > I can't think of ANYONE who wouldn't be better off if we > published deltas > for WG charter revisions when we ask for comments. We can > each trivially > produce our own deltas, but if you want feedback from the community, > providing deltas is likely to get more (and more helpful) feedback. > > If the approach taken also accommodated the kind of charter > thrashing where > Robert could distribute two revisions of SIP-CLF before IETF > 75, distribute > three revisions to the proposed charter three times during > IETF 75 based on > hallway and meeting room discussions, and send out a "here's > where the > proposed charter is" e-mail (with a trail showing how we got > there) after > IETF 75, that would be even better. Robert is good and has > SIP-CLF charter > revisions under source code control, but it would be superb > if all of the > proposed revisions were under source code control at the same > location. > > Much like we now do for Internet-Drafts... :D > > IMO, of course. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > > Looking at this recharter, the immediate question I had was > "what has > > actually changed in the charter?" so I can figure out if I care. > > > > I gather there is one very small change. But you'd have to be a WG > > insider to know this. > > > > Also, reading through the charter, it reads like it was > written a year > > and a half ago (which it was), and parts of the text in the charter > > are OBE, so just reading the charter as is gives a > misleading picture > > of where things currently stand. > > > > I guess I'm raising a bit of a meta point here that this recharter > > announcement is not very helpful to the general community, > which seems > > bad. And if the charter needs to be updated, it really should be > > updated to reflect the current state of play. > > > > In particular: > > > > - it is not easy to figure out what has actually changed relative > > the current charter (this could have been handled by a short note > > providing context as part of the announcement). > > > > - it includes actions of the form "will do" that I believe have > > already been done. (e.g., there are 6 WG documents, not 4 as the > > charter suggests, the design team is presumably no longer driving > > this, as the documents are fully WG ones now, and the WG is not > > doing an "extended review" of the DT output, etc.) > > > > Now, I suspect that it was decided to minimize the amount of work > > needed to recharter and thus just update the one or two important > > sentences in the charter, and I sympathize with that desire. But I > > would also hope we could at least update it so that the average IETF > > reader (or anyone interested in IDNs for that matter) could read the > > charter and understand the current state of play. I don't think it > > would take a lot of effort to update it, and I'm not calling for any > > subtantive changes. They should all be editorial, so additional > > changes should not be controversial. > > > > IESG Secretary <iesg-secret...@ietf.org> writes: > > > >> Goals and Milestones: > >> Apr 2008 WG formation > >> May 2008 Decision on form and structure of the WG document set > >> Sep 2008 WG Last Call on WG document set > >> Nov 2008 IETF Last Call on WG document set > > > > Oops! > > > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
