Subject: Re: The IESG charter process

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:18:51 -0500

On Friday, Mar 7, 2003, at 08:59 America/Montreal, Keith Moore wrote:
> We need to stop calling this a charter, and start calling it 
> documentation
> of current practice.  It's clearly useful to document current practice,
> and the justification for current practice, especially when a lot of 
> the
> criticism of IESG practice is done out of ignorance of what that 
> practice
> actually is and the reasons why things are done that way.

Something that describes the powers of a group under ISoc is normally 
called
a charter (example: IAB Charter RFC).  So the title is in fact quite 
correct,
whether it documents current practice or proposes new practice.

Changing the title as Keith suggests would confuse the issue of whether
what is in the document meets the community consensus test.

And for the record, I want to thank Harald for trying to write down the
IESG Charter.  There can be no question this creates hassle for him and
others on the IESG, but there has been demand for such a document from
some portion of the community for some time.   I really appreciate him
taking on this activity.

[And my understanding from Harald is that discussion of the already 
published
I-D about an IESG Charter is on-topic for the IETF main discussion list,
so I've moved this thread from the IETF problem-statement list]

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:26:47 -0500

> what is in the document meets the community consensus test.

no, it would clarify which parts of IESG operation were derived from
consensus documents (by docmenting which ones) and which parts were
decided by IESG, and what the justification for those were.

it is premature to entertain significant changes to IESG operation (other
than, say, for increased transparency) before we entertain changes elsewhere
in the organization.

Keith