On Oct 1, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
The working group milestones are updated as needed to reflect the
current work items and their associated milestones. Significant new
work items will be brought for approval with the IESG.
I wouldn't have milestones in the charter at all. Milestones imply
pre-planned goals and conclusions. You don't want to re-charter every
time a new idea comes in, nor do you want to re-charter when one of
the
ideas that didn't have a home yet acquires one.
The responsible AD(s) can approve changes to WG milestones without the
need to recharter. So, as long as we don't provide an exclusive list
of work items in the charter text, adding new work items to the
milestone list will not require re-chartering.
I think we should add a milestone (or a set of milestones) for each
new work item, after we have accepted the work item as a working group
document, so that it is clear what we are working on and when we
expect it to complete.
I am not entirely sure what the line "Significant new work items will
be brought for approval to the IESG" means. I think that should
either be better explained or removed. The TSVWG has the following
wording, which I prefer:
Additional work [...] in TSVWG must satisfy four
conditions: (1) WG consensus on the suitability and projected quality
of the proposed work item. (2) A core group of WG participants with
sufficient energy and expertise to advance the work item according to
the proposed schedule. (3) Commitment from the WG as a whole to
provide sufficient and timely review of the proposed work item. (4)
Agreement by the ADs, who, depending on the scope of the proposed
work item, may decide that an IESG review is needed first.
Of course, choice (4) will work better (an extra layer of sanity
checking) if the WG chairs are not the ADs.
Although I support the use of milestones to track work items, I would
prefer to see the SEAL milestone dropped from the charter until we can
confirm that the above conditions have been met for that item. I
personally think they have been demonstrated for the other two items
(IPID and tunneling issues), but I would not object to holding off on
those items if anyone else would prefer that we check that these
conditions have been met before including them.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
