Roman,
> On Oct 17, 2024, at 11:20 AM, Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jeff! > > Thanks for the analysis of the situation. > > The top line message I'm getting from your response is that > draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo not being in scope of the BFD charter is not > in dispute, the question is what to do to move forward. It is not in dispute. Given that an active wgchairs discussion is "you have stale charters" and "what are charters for", this is directly apropos to that broader discussion. As I have noted to John Scudder, I'm a supporter of the "charters are very important to new groups, and long existing groups the charter is the responsibility to maintain and extend their protocol" point of view. All documents remaining in the BFD queue fall into the "maintaining and extending the protocol". I'll focus on my primary concern: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 06:24:10AM -0700, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote: > More directly, it's known that charters are stale. Is this *really* the > point you want to use as a DISCUSS > > [Roman] See below. > > and will an audit of things you've > approved show that you've consistently applied that evaluation criteria? > > [Roman] Please do. I welcome an audit of my balloting record and any > resulting feedback. I hope it can improve my reviews -- there is always room > for improvement on my part. Fundamentally, I'd be only interested in such an audit if this becomes a blocking point in the publication process. If the "emergency recharter" process simply exists to push the lingering work into the charter, it's a peculiar flavor of forcing function for the sake of process. If so, whatever. Let's get the patch done to let the documents move forward. If it turns into a pocket veto of work that's been happening for a while, the audit simply becomes homework for pushing the buttons on the appeals process. The motivation for such an appeal would be against the inconsistent application of charter as a gating criteria for publication. I'm hoping such a pocket veto isn't the intent. Life's too short to waste time on unnecessary appeals. > > I suggest you reconsider the position filed as a COMMENT. > > [Roman] Thank you. On reflection, I am still unpersuaded by the argument that > because the IESG (me included in 2022 when I was SEC AD) missed that the YANG > documents were not in scope for the charter and still approved them, that we > should now ignore the charter again. Recognizing that flexibility (of some > kind) is sometimes needed, I might be swayed if this was the last document to > finish before the WG was going to close, or perhaps there were some pressing > circumstances that required immediate document processing. If the motivation is simply "update your charter" and your goal is to start the clown car music to make this a case to cause all WGs with stale charters do the update, that's a peculiar way to spend your political capital. A DISCUSS is an implied blocking behavior even if it eventually resolves across the process. So, you're sending a message by your choice of DISCUSS vs. COMMENT. -- Jeff
