[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Another IESG Charter revision
--On mandag, april 07, 2003 10:49:34 -0400 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
you owe me big sushi
It is meant to document the charter of the IESG as presently
understood (Jan 2003).
^^^
STATUS NOTE (to be removed from RFC):
This document is intended for publication as an Informational
document, detailing the instructions to the IESG that the IESG thinks
it has been operating under up to 2003. It does not claim to
^ and including
*blush*
1.1 The role of the IESG
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is the group that
exists to perform the overarching operational and technical
management functions of the Internet Engineeering Task Force (IETF).
s/exists to//
changed from previous versions - I wanted to emphasize that the IESG
doesn't have any other purpose than to be IETF management. The previous
version had "is the function", but Brian Carpenter didn't like a group of
people being called a function. Better language?
s/overarching//
the point raised was that WG chairs perform management functions too. I
wanted some way to say that the IESG doesn't do all the management
functions of the IETF, but that "the buck stops here". Better language?
in both cases, it is a balance between having a short, comprehensible
sentence and fitting the entire document inside the first sentence.
As part of this function, the IESG is tasked with making the
management decisions about working groups in the IETF, and with the
final review and approval of documents published as IETF standards-
track documents.
only standards track?
yes - we review RFC-Ed docs, but don't approve them. OTOH, we do review and
approve WG documents of any type. Sentence expanded.
o The IETF Chair, who may also function as an Area Director when
appropriate
who is also the director of the general area. do not imply that
this gives you the position to be the AD for arbitrary wgs.
I had the general area in the previous version, and John Klensin told me to
avoid casting the existence of that area, or the need for the chair to be
an AD, in stone.
Given what Fred did with the General area back in 1999, what groups go into
the General area seems limited by the General AD's imagination anyway....
The IETF Executive Director is appointed by the IETF Chair,
are iab chair and isoc vp stds not involved here?
This is new since last version.
I asked around about whether we had any running code on this, and nobody
could remember anything except that Phil Gross said "you're it" to Steve
Coya.
I don't want to enshrine the continued existence of the VP Standards role -
Lynn has questioned its usefulness.
For the purpose of judging consensus, only the IETF Chair and the
Area Directors are counted.
^other
if we want to have the option of the IETF Chair not being an AD, he needs
to be mentioned specially. He doesn't get a double vote, though .-)
However, discussion of personnel matters and possibly legal and
financial matters may sometimes be required to be kept confidential,
and the chair may, with the consent of the full members, exclude
liaison and ex officio members whose presence is seen as
inappropriate for the particular discussion from such discussions.
also exclusion of conflicted folk when discussing things such as
appeals
mumble. The tradition has been that the IESG discusses an appeal against a
decision with all ADs present, including the AD responsible for the area in
which the appealed decision was taken.
This has been thought to be good because it provided maximum information
about the background - I think.
What about the following strawman?
<t>The chair may also apply exclusion to full members who have a
serious conflict of interest on an issue. Members can also
choose to recuse themselves from discussion of an issue, or refrain
from casting a vote on an issue, if they feel that is appropriate.</t>
The IESG is in charge of managing the working group process. While
the process of running a working group is delegated to the working
group chairs, the IESG is in charge of those processes that are
beyond the scope of the working group chair's role. Many of these
functions are delegated by the IESG to a single Area Director - the
"responsible Area Director" for the group.
s/many of these//
Chartering a WG isn't. s/many/most/.
The AD is responsible for ensuring that a working group being
chartered fulfils the criteria for WG formation given in BCP 25. The
charter is the result of a negotiation between the AD and the
community of interest, with review and advice by the IAB.
^ and the rest of the iesg
ack
The AD is also responsible for selecting chairs for the working group
that he thinks will be up to the task.
s/that he/which the ad/
ack
In a well functioning working group, main responsibility for these
^the
things rests with the chairs; the AD will normally be able to
concentrate on supporting the working group chairs' work.
5. The IESG role in document review
The IESG is expected to ensure that the documents are of a sufficient
quality for release as an RFC,
a/an rfc/rfcs/
ack
that they describe their subject matter well, and that there
are no outstanding engineering issues that should be addressed
before publication. The degree of review will vary with the
intended status of the documents.
^ and the perceived relative importance
When there are problems that occur frequently, the IESG may publish
^ or solutions
documents describing the problems and how to avoid them, such as
"IANA considerations" (BCP 26 [8]), or publish web pages with
commonly used guidelines.
ack
5.2.1 Standards-track
^documents
o Whether or not the specification needs review by one or more
existing WGs or coordination with ^
The IESG may decide that a document submitted for standards-track
publication should instead be published as Experimental or
Informational.
or bcp
bcp is stds-track. but you're right. Sentence expanded.
5.2.2 Informational and Experimental
These documents are submitted to the RFC Editor in accordance with
the procedures of BCP 9 [1] section 4.2.3 and BCP 25 [2] section 8.
The IESG is asked to review all documents submitted in this fashion
for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work done in the
IETF community; this is a modification of the BCP 9 [1] procedure,
and documented in BCP 25 [2] section 8.
info and experimental can also come from anyomne through an AD,
yes?
see other discussion. I want to settle this one way or another.
Inserted the following paragraph for now at the very end of the section.
<t>NOTE IN DRAFT: The following should either be kept or
removed. If it is removed, "normally" in the preceeding
description goes away. The IESG is discussing.</t>
<t>When an AD decides that an Informational or
Experimental document is of particular importance to the
community, the AD may also choose to put it directly
before the IESG. This document will then be processed in
the same fashion as an Informational or Experimental
document from a working group.</t>
If the document is referred to a WG, the WG can recommend that the
to the AD(s) ^
document be adopted as a WG document, that it be published (possibly
with comments), or that the IESG recommend to the RFC Editor that it
not be published. The responsible AD for the WG is responsible for
getting a response from the WG in a timely manner.
Changes to the area structure affect the IETF in many ways; decisions
to change the area structure will be taken in consultation with the
community
s/will be/are/
ack.
The primary task of area management is done by one or two Area
Directors per area. An AD may be advised by one or more
directorates, which is selected and chaired by the AD (BCP 25 [2]
section 1).
s/is/are/
The IESG decides which areas groups belong to.
^ working
7.1 Staff supervision
The IETF Chair has primary responsibility for supervising the work of
the IETF Executive Director and the IETF Secretariat, with the advice
and consent of the IESG and the IAB.
again, are not iab chair and isoc vp stds co-equals here?
the isoc vp of standards is absolutely not co-equal. We may want to include
"ISOC leadership" in the advice and consent clause - both Lynn and Fred
have been involved at times.
while having the IAB chair involved in discussions is a major win for me, I
think having one of us in charge and the other one in cooperation is better
than a co-equal arrangement; I really wouldn't mind flipping a coin to see
who is "it", but co-equal gets messy; I need to reply to Barbara saying
"yes" or "no", and to know that if Leslie doesn't agree, she'll tell me
rather than try to countermand me; wrt liaisons, IANA and the RFC Editor,
the same thing applies in the other direction - I don't direct them, but
voice my opinion to Leslie.
updates on the way. sushi in Washington.