Re: comments on WG rechartering procedures

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> I think this is a misunderstanding; this paragraph was intended to say that 
> the AD sends a single message "WG to agenda ... and here is the charter".
> Suggestions for improved wording?

Suggested reword:

> The procedures for creating a new working group (WG) are as follows:
> 

>     * The AD may send a draft charter to the IESG mailing list
> (iesg@ietf.org) for "informal" discussion. The Secretariat takes no
> action at this time.

Fine.

> * The AD submits a draft charter to the Secretariat (i.e., to
>       iesg-secretary@ietf.org) for "internal review."

Change to:

 * The AD submits a draft charter to the Secretariat (i.e., to
       iesg-secretary@ietf.org) for "internal review." Secretariat
       does not place on next telechat agenda unless explicitely
       requested to do so.

>     * The Secretariat does the following:

> * Informal discussion takes place, and the responsible AD revises
>        the charter.

> * The AD submits the revised charter to the Secretariat (i.e., to
> iesg-secretary@ietf.org), and requests that the WG be placed on the
> agenda for the next Telechat.

Change to:

       * As necessary in response to discussion, the AD

        - submits a revised charter to the Secretariat (i.e., to
	  iesg-secretary@ietf.org)

	- requests that the WG be placed on the agenda for the next
          Telechat (if necessary).

	- requests that the WG be removed from the agenda for the next
          telechat (if appropriate).
	  

> >>                 + Creates a mailing list for the WG if requested to
> >                   do so by the WG Chairs, and approved by the AD
> >                   (INTERNAL PROCEDURES)
> >
> > Note: in most cases, the mailing list is created prior to final
> > approval of the WG. I mention this only to be sure there isn't an
> > implication that WG mailing lists hosted at ietf.org can only be set
> > up after the WG is formally approved...
> >
> > Actually, I think the above an be struck, because the procedures for
> > creating mailing lists would cover the issue of when to create mailing
> > lists.

> We're still discussing when mailing lists @ietf.org can be created. I've 
> asked Barbara to give me some background information so that we can decide 
> what policy we want. More issues here....

We have runnng code that mailing lists are being created prior to
official WG creation. I surely hope we aren't about to change that,
and the above wording leaves me uncomfortable that we're maybe
changing running code.

>  		
> >>                 + Sends a formal "WG Action" announcement to the IETF
> >>                 Announcement List (i.e., to ietf-announce@ietf.org) with
> >>                 copies to the proposed Chairs of the new WG. The
> >>                 standard message is as follows:
> >>
> >>                   To: IETF-Announce
> >>                   Subject: WG Action: [insert name of WG] ([insert
> >>                   acronym]) From: The IESG [iesg-secretary@ietf.org]
> >>                   Date: [automatically inserted]
> >>                   Cc: [insert e-mail address(es) of the WG Chair(s)]
> >
> > Maybe this goes into a process change, but can we please cc the
> > newly-created WG's mailing list here (and in all the WG messages that
> > get sent to ietf-announce) too?

> I think we want to think about that - shouldn't we CC the WG on all public 
> announcements as soon as we think we know what the WG list is going
> to be?

Yes.

> This ties into the "creation of mailing lists" issue.

In those cases where the list is hosted at ietf.org - not all lists
are. Indeed, _all_ BOFs/pre-WGs have mailing lists prior to being WGs,
though not necssarily hosted at ietf.org.

> I suggest we delay this until we have another discussion on "what should be 
> public when", and when mailing lists are created.

Can we just say something like that on all public messages, the WG
mailing should be cc'ed (if it exists).

Thomas