Subject: [edu-team] WG Training / Lunch

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:52:52 +0000

Hi Team-Edu!

Have you planned Anaheim yet? Maastricht?

I recently heard from a WG chair that he is not comfortable with the "rules" 
for determining when a draft should become a Working Group draft. What 
actions should a chair take first, what state should the draft be in, and 
what consensus should the working group show?

He points out that none of the literature (RFC 2026, RFC 2418, RFC 4677, 
http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html) says anything about this, and 
the wiki (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart) is 
silent.

My personal view is that this is something that should be open to chairs to 
interpret as most beneficial to their task. We don't want to codify rules 
that will box chairs in unnecessarily.

However, this might be a topic that could stand 20 minutes at a Wednesday 
lunch.

Happy to discuss with you further.
Adrian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:42:57 +1300

Hi Adrian,

The topic for Anaheim is already set and slides half drafted,
unless the EDU chair want to make a change.
(IMHO this was never a big puzzle for me as a WG chair - adopting
a draft is a WG rough consensus matter, but it has to address
an item in the charter. Apart from that it's the chairs' responsibility,
as you say.)

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2010-02-15 12:52, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> I recently heard from a WG chair that he is not comfortable with the
> "rules" for determining when a draft should become a Working Group
> draft. What actions should a chair take first, what state should the
> draft be in, and what consensus should the working group show?
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html) says anything about this,
> and the wiki (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart)
> is silent.
> 
> My personal view is that this is something that should be open to chairs
> to interpret as most beneficial to their task. We don't want to codify
> rules that will box chairs in unnecessarily.
> 
> However, this might be a topic that could stand 20 minutes at a
> Wednesday lunch.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> edu-team mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team
>

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:47:45 +0000

I'm not puzzled by it either, but I am not a WG chair asking for 
clarification and comfort.

Anyway...

"Not this time" duly received and recorded.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:19:12 -0500

This EDU co-chair thinks we should keep the current topic for this  
session.  Mirjam can chime in if she disagrees, of course.

Perhaps I could revive my Intro WG Chair Training session (the one for  
new and aspiring chairs) for Sunday of the next IETF, assuming I can  
make it there?

I'm sorry that I've been so quiet lately.  My company was purchased in  
January by a larger company in the network forensics industry, NIKSUN,  
Inc.  Until last week, it was uncertain whether I would be funded to  
continue any IETF activities, but I believe that we have that resolved  
now and I will be able to continue.  Now to go catch up on all that  
IETF work I've been ignoring!

Margaret