Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dnsop-04-01: Block
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dnsop/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Orie and Roman (and Wes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Ecu3-l5NTOWGVYWe0PpGnabnnZs/ ) I would feel better if there was a mandatory review period of the charter after one year, as has been done by other WGs. This would force a regular review of the current state of OP vs development and the DELEG state, and give a bit more guarantee that DNSOP is actually getting its activities split in the (not 5 years away) future. For example, PQUIP has in its charter: The IESG is establishing this working group on an experimental basis, and in 2 years, the IESG intends to review it for rechartering to continue or else closure. Perhaps a similar compromise can be found for the DNSOP charter. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
