Hi Ryan, On 05/06/17 15:14, Ryan Sleevi wrote: > That seems a sort of broadly worded expiration, and one that would be > hard to measure.
Which half is hard to measure? The deliverables are fairly concrete, and after they come up with a couple of proposals which don't reach consensus, it should end up being fairly clear to all whether or not there's no obvious way forward. (Although I suspect this scenario to be unlikely.) > For example, if a single ratification fails, is the WG expired? Not unless there are no other plausible candidates for a proposal. > If the > WG never tries to ratify a proposal, does the WG expire? If that happens (and they also can't agree that a proposal is impossible), we might ask them what on earth they are doing :-) > If the WG makes > a single proposal - while others are still being worked on - does the WG > expire? I wouldn't expect the WG to make a proposal if others are being prepared; they are being asked for one report. I recognise and appreciate the "jackass genie" approach to checking whether wording is sane, but I really don't think we can write text to cover all possible weird eventualities in one charter. > Looking at the bylaws, Section 5.3 makes it clear that there's a > "Working Group expiration _date_" (emphasis added). From the past > discussions regarding the scope and nature of WGs - including the F2F > discussion in Raleigh - and borrowing from other SDOs, perhaps it would > be more fruitful and worthwhile to set an explicit date, one year out. I've been involved in IETF groups such as DBOUND; they seemed to shut themselves down when it was clear that no progress was going to be made, rather than on a date basis. I agree the Bylaws say "expiration date", but do any of our existing WGs have an expiration date? That's not necessarily a reason not to have one, but it shows the sky doesn't necessarily fall if we have expiration conditions rather than a date. Given the short time available and the value of having the WG constituted by the F2F, I propose this: we'll talk about WG rules at the F2F and if there is support for expiration dates rather than conditions, I'll put forward a ballot adding dates to all existing WGs. If there is instead support for conditions, I'll put forward a ballot amending the Bylaws to match practice. > Are there any limitations to the WG? For example, will the WG only > consider updates to the Network Security Controls? Is it considering > updates to all documents? I think the statement is pretty clear that the group's charter is to consider the future of the NSGs, not any other document. > Is it trying to provide the documents > themselves, or is it simply trying to make proposals for them? It is proposing a plan (or plans) to move forward, for the consideration of the membership. It's not necessarily trying to provide "the documents themselves" - their recommended plan may not involve a document :-) Of course if it does, and they've prepared a draft, I'm sure the membership will be grateful for the input. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
