> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Harrington > > As co-chair: Let me make this clear - anybody can write a > proposed charter for a WG and present it to the area > directors for approval; you do not need current chairs to do > so. Working with the current chairs to fashion a charter > makes a difference because the area directors have experience > with us, and they know we know how to fashion a charter, and > if this is a "re-charter" that might involve retaining the > existing chairs. Any proposed WG could be called something > other "syslog WG". It could be created in the Security area > or the OPS area (and would need to be presented to the > appropriate area directors). The current chairs may or may > not continue as chairs for (or even be involved in) a > rechartered or newly chartered WG. >
Re-chartering an existing WG and forming a new WG are two different cases. For re-chartering at least in the OPS area we prefer that an existing working group debates and reaches some kind of consensus about a proposed new charter text and then submits it to the AD's. I do not know if the same practice is followed by SEC or other areas but I suspect it might not be that different. New Working Groups follow a different process, which may start by a bar-BOF, or BOF, new or old players proposing a charter, implies mandatory IETF review and other. Dan _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
