Chris, jumping in very late and without having read through the discussion. I just want to say that I have been totally tied up with a project for the past two and a half month and I am off to summer vacation soon. I'll try to read through the doc and provide some feedback from my POV within the next two days, in the hopes that this may be useful.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Chris Lonvick > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:27 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: syslog > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Proposed charter > > 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 _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
