Re: Feedback on proposed charter from the IESG

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, EricLKlein wrote:
>
> > 2. Keep current items, and make new items fit stricter acceptance process
> > (active middle approach proposed by Eric)
>
>
> No problem there, but the key point remains -- what would be that 
> stricter acceptance process? :)
>
> > 3. Keep current items, and specify that adding new work items requires
> > re-chartering (middle approach proposed by Pekka)
> > 4. Keep Current items and re-charter as new issues come up (Sleep mode as
> > proposed by Alain)
>
>
> I think these are basically the same.  If there are no new items after 
> done with those currently being chartered (and we still would need to 
> discuss which those would be), the WG either goes to sleep or is shut 
> down.. we don't have to decide which at this point.

I would suggest a 2.5 approach:

Make the charter obviously in two parts:

First part: general statement of purpose, maybe a bit shorter
than the current version, plus a new bit that sets the level
for new work items, e.g.

  Future work items within this scope will be adopted by the
  WG only if there is a substantial expression of interest
  from the operational community and if the work clearly does
  not fit elsewhere in the IETF.

Second part: the menu of currently chartered work items (not
just the list of milestones).

And yes, adding work items and milestones will be a charter
update, involving the AD and perhaps the IESG. That's what
they are "paid" for.

   Brian