At 10:53 13-01-11, Tony Hansen wrote:
Folks, the time has come to start deciding what to do with the YAM
working group. I've been discussing this with my co-chair and our
AD, and I see several ways forward:
1) stay on hold -- keep the group in hiatus for another X months
a) we would need to decide on what X is
Pete proposed at IETF78 that the working group could consider
suspending its activities until it knows whether
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels will go through.
It was mentioned that there was a view within the IESG that moving
documents to Full Standard was pointless. It was also mentioned that
IESG finds the pre-evaluation documents too painful.
There are two issues here:
(i) Whether the IESG considers it worthwhile to move documents along the
Standards Track
(ii) Whether the procedure adopted by the Working Group to do the work
is optimal
I don't recall seeing a WG in hiatus before. Some WGs drag their
feet to complete the work. That can be viewed as a pause
button. And it buys the WG the time it needs to see the composition
of the IESG that should be seated in Prague. If the decision is
delayed by a month, the WG may be in a better position to assess the
first issue.
It is not within IETF practices to see mild discussions in a WG
working on mail related specifications. Maybe the procedure adopted
by the WG has something to do with that.
D) Do something else.
At IETF76, the following proposal was made:
"In the event all documents are removed from the WG charter, the WG will
write a narrowly drawn update to RFC 2026 that eliminates the third level
of standard; this update document is forbidden from making other changes
in the standards process."
That might require a recharter as the existing charter does not cover this.
I would like to point out that this WG has a history of being asked
whether to recharter or disband. There seems to be caused by
unhappiness with the IESG. A charter defines the work a WG will do
and how it will do it. If following the charter is so difficult,
there must be a problem with the charter.
I suggest that the WG asks for a recharter by:
(i) Bringing up the existing charter with minor changes to the IETF
mailing list for discussion and see whether the IETF Community
supports what is in the charter
(ii) Sending the charter to the (new) IESG for approval or discussing
a different course of action after reviewing the input from the
previous step.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
