Subject: [Icar] ICAR draft charter rev 3

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:04:13 -0800

Folks,

 Rev 3, the final version before it goes to Harald, below.

 html-diff against rev2 is available at
 http://www.psg.com/~zinin/ietf/icar.charter.v2v3.diff.html

 Alex R., given a good level of support on the list for the current
 text of the charter, I decided not to incorporate the substantial
 changes you suggested, except for a minor clarification of the
 "earlier" part that Dave also brought up--changing the text
 substantially would introduce the risk of having to go through the
 complete rewrite & review cycle again.
 
 Thank all for your comments!

Alex

   WG name: improved cross-area review (icar)

   Chairs: <TBD>

   General Area Director(s):
    Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>

   General Area Advisor:
    Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
   
   Mailing list: [email-masked]
   Subscription: [email-masked]
   Archives : https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/icar/current/maillist.html

   WG Description:

     The WG will work out mechanisms for improved cross-functional
     review within the IETF, addressing the issues identified by the
     PROBLEM WG. This includes a better community review, as well as
     more structured pre-IESG review that may be used to improve
     scalability of the IESG review function.

     Definitions:

      o Cross-functional review: document review covering different
      aspects of Internet technology, including those represented by
      WGs within different IETF areas.

      o Community review: document review performed by individual IETF
      participants and not caused by their responsibilities within
      the IETF management structure.

      o Structured review: more formal and role-based document review
      performed by individuals assuming certain responsibilities (such
      as by WG chairs, directorate and IESG members.)

     It is an explicit goal of the WG to come up with mechanisms
     encouraging early review of the documents while ideas are still
     in the formation stage. An early review is best for catching
     architectural problems while they're still relatively easy to
     solve. In particular, many cross-functional interactions can be
     spotted and dealt with, thus avoiding many "late surprises". A
     final review (currently done by the IESG) can catch remaining
     cross-functional interactions, as well as deal with overall
     quality issues.
     
     The WG will cooperate with others in starting and evaluating
     experiments with early community and structured reviews. The
     evaluation of such experiments may be published as Informational
     RFCs if the group so desires.

     The WG will also coordinate with other WGs involved in the IETF
     reform process on proposed changes to the IETF Working Group
     operations and Standards process if those are considered
     necessary.

   WG milestones:

     FEB 2004: Publish Internet Drafts on improved community and structured reviews
     SEP 2004: Submit draft on improved community review to
               the IESG for publication as BCP
     SEP 2004: Submit draft on improved structured community review to
               the IESG for publication as BCP
     JAN 2005: Evaluate WG progress and potential; close or recharter

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:45:43 -0500

Hi Alex,

Just a couple of minor questions/comments:

>      experiments with early community and structured reviews.

Are you intending that the word "early" is applied to both community
and structured reviews, or only to community reviews in this sentence?
In other words, do you mean that this group will work on both structured
and unstructured early review, or is it also intended to work on changes
to the final/later review process?

>      FEB 2004: Publish Internet Drafts on improved community and 

I'd rather see separate sets of drafts (I assume that these are two
separate sets of drafts?) have separate entries.  Also, is this
intended to be a deadline for the community to submit ideas that will
be considered in the final proposals?  Or is this the date for
publication of the first WG I-Ds?

>                the IESG for publication as BCP

Based on the definitions that you included earlier in the charter,
I think that "structured community review" is an oxymoron.

Margaret