Hi,
David and I are trying to be pragmatic about the rechartering effort.
The slides contain a long list of things that _could_ be done. However,
we're not seeing people jump up and state that they are committed to doing
any of them, with the exception of the dtls document where we have a
starting point, an author, and reviewers. We don't want to present a
proposed charter which might look good, but won't have any commitment
behind it.
If the dtls work is the only thing that's going to go forward, then it
makes sense to keep the WG in the security area.
We are hoping that OPS people will drop into the room and take up the
challenge on some of the items. :-) If not, then we'll drop back to
divining consensus and committment from the mailing list which really
hasn't had much activity about rechartering.
Regards,
Chris
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
-----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
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
