Re: Thoughts over the holidays - IESG procedures.

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

4.2 IESG review of non-standards-track RFCs
>>                ^
>>             working group

   For this class of document, there is no requirement that all ADs give
   an opinion on the document.  The call is instead "does anyone have
   any objection to this going forward"; if there is none, the document
   is approved.

>> 4.3 IESG review of documents referred by the RFC Editor
>> These documents are treated generally like working group non-standards
>> track documents.

>> I think its best to call these out because they seem to be on people's
>> minds

>> 4.4  IESG reading documents
>> All IESG members are expected to have done some level of review of
>> IETF Working Group documents but the level of review can vary depending
>> on the AD's interest in the topic, the level of trust that the AD
>> has that their particular issues will have been adequately addressed
>> by the working group and adequately reviewed by the shepherding AD and
>> the amount of time the AD has.

>> IESG members in general give less of a review to documents refered
>> to the IESG by the RFC Editor.  Such documents are assigned a 
>> shepherding AD, normally one of the ADs from an area where the
>> topic of the document might logically fit.  The shepherding AD is
>> responsible for doing, or asking others to do, a review of the
>> document and to make a recomendation about the document to the
>> rest of the IESG.

>> migt also have a section somewhere on what we llok for in these
>> docs 
>> 	not an end run
>>	not a danger to the Net
>>	for things like MIME registrations, that its in the right format etc
>>	???


5. IESG working group management

5.1 Working group creation

   A working group proposal is always worked out between a responsible
   AD and the working group proposers.
>> there needs to be a mention of BOFs here somewhere

   When the responsible AD thinks that a working group charter is a good
   idea, she may send an informal note to the IESG mailing list to get
>>                                                ^
>>                                        and IAB

   initial feedback; this is often called the "laugh test".

   When the AD thinks that the working group description is ready for
   wider review, the AD sends it to the IESG secretary in order to place
   it on a telechat agenda.
>> IESG secretary sends formal notice to IESG & IAB lists & adds
>> to agenda - are the potential WG chairs CCed at this point under
>> the new rules?

   If no IESG member objects to the charter, the IESG secretary then
   sends the proposed charter to the IETF-announce list and to the new-
   work list (which is a list maintained for cooperation between
   standards bodies).
>> add something about wanting community & other-SDO input

   The charter is placed on the next telechat agenda 2 weeks later, and
   if no IESG member objects at that time, the charter of the new
   working group is approved.

>> if an AD objects, then the charter proposal is reworked between
>> the objecting AD, the shepherding AD, the proposed WG chairs and
>> sometimes the pre-WG mailing list

5.2 Working group modification

   When a working group charter is changed, the procedure depends on the
   type of change.

   o  Changes to milestone dates are handled by the chairs notifying the
      IESG secretary and the AD, and the AD approving them.
>> s/IESG secretary/ietf-action@ietf.org/

   o  Changes to milestone text are handled by the chairs and the AD
      working out new text, the chairs sending the updates to the IESG
      secretary, and the AD approving them.
>> s/IESG secretary/ietf-action@ietf.org/

   o  Adding, removing and replacing chairs is handled by the AD, who
      notifies the IESG secretary, who updates the charter.
>> usually this also involves discussion within the IESG

   o  Changes to the body of a charter requires IESG approval.

   When updating the body of a charter, the new charter is sent to the
   IESG secretary, who places it on the IESG telechat agenda; if no IESG
   member objects, the charter is approved.  The IESG has the option of
   sending the revised charter to ietf-announce and new-work for public
   review, but does not need to do so.
>> no option if the charter change means the WG is to do work outside
>> of the original scope - in this case the revised charter must go
>> to new work/ietf-announce for public comment before approval

   When the changed charter is approved, the updated charter is always



Alvestrand                Expires June 1, 2003                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              An IESG charter                December 2002


   sent to ietf-announce.


6. IESG appeals procedure

   The formal appeals procedure is described in RFC 2026 section 6.5.

   An appeal to the IESG is initiated by email to the IETF Chair, copied
   to the IESG secretary.  If the appeal is not clear about whether or
   not it is an appeal, what is being appealed, or what the proposed
   remedies are, there may be a dialogue between the chair and the
   appealing person(s) to clarify the appeal.

   The IESG will then ask the responsible AD to give her opinion of the
   matter, as evidenced by the previous required step of discussing the
   matter with the responsible AD.

   The IESG will then discuss the matter in a telechat without the IAB
   liaison or the IAB chair being present (in order to keep the
   separation from the responsible body for a possible appeal), and will
   usually assign to some AD (not the responsible AD) the task of
   writing a response.
>>          ^
>>       draft

>> should note that we have a iesg-only email list for discussing appeals

   When the proposed response text is ready, the IESG will discuss it by
   email and in a new telechat without the IAB.  When the IESG agrees
>> s/a new telechat without the IAB/its next telechat after asking the 
>> IAB representives to leave the call/

   upon the text, it is sent to the appealant and to the ietf-announce
   list, as well as being archived on the IESG's public web pages.