Subject: [sacm] Alvaro Retana's Block on charter-ietf-sacm-01-00: (with BLOCK)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:15:10 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-sacm-01-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sacm/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like the only update from the previous charter is changing the
expiration date of the WG in the last sentence:  

OLD:

 This charter will expire in July 2016. If the charter is not updated 
 before that time, the WG will be closed and any remaining 
 documents revert back to individual Internet-Drafts.

NEW:

 This charter will expire in January 2017. If the charter is not updated
 before that time, the WG will be closed and any remaining documents 
 revert back to individual Internet-Drafts.

But July 2016 already passed, the WG was not closed and the documents
didn't revert back to individual I-Ds.  Not explicitly following this WG
I can't tell how realistic the new date is, or if we're going to be
changing it again soon.  In other words, what is the value of putting an
expiration date in a charter if we already have a precedent of not
honoring it?

I may obviously be missing something in the history of this work/WG, so
this BLOCK has the intent of taking the expiration date out; or at least
clarifying why one is necessary.

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:30:17 -0400

Hi Alvaro,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sacm/

We discussed this in July at the Berlin meeting and the update was put
on the telechat before July ended.

I'd like to keep an expiration date on SACM's charter as they have
only recently started to make progress.  If the progress continues,
then we'll look more carefully at the next recharter, but they need a
little time to make headway.  They've just started doing protocol work
after much prodding from me.  This has put new life into the WG.  They
do get hung up on some bikeshedding, but the chairs (one is a new
chair to SACM) are doing a great job of curbing that as well.

> clarifying why one is necessary.

We can do that on the next iteration and shape up the charter, but I'd
like the expiration option in case things fall back as they were.

Thanks,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:05:26 +0000

On 8/3/16, 10:30 AM, "Kathleen Moriarty"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

Kathleen:

Hi!

>like the expiration option in case things fall back as they were.

I can't say I share the reasoning for using an expiration date as a tool
to manage the WG's progress.  I think there are other ways to do it,
including simply closing the WG, without having to rely on the threat of
expiration...

I see that Stephen also balloted Yes on this update.  It is your area,
your tools, so I won't stand in the way of WG progress.

Thanks!

Alvaro.