Subject: Re: proposed new charter

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 05:19:14 -0800

Brian,

I agree with Bill about the IPR WG taking more responsibility for
the deployment of its results.  Only determining the consensus
and not caring about seeing the running code in action is
a "standards-goer" theory of a WG.  

Bill is speaking from the trenches, and he was a hero there.  If the
changes are needed but they aren't taken up in a fair and uniform way,
the WG has a failure.  The implicit requirement was for tool
implementation, which Bill helped along (xml2rc folks are also
heroes, but they need feedback) and Secretariat rule-making (they
need guidelines and feedback, as they try hard to do something
with our complex system).

One of the issues I came upon as an AD a few years ago, but
still relevant to this discussion, was that the BCPs were very
slow to be published, and documents were waiting for resolution of
the reference to the BCP number in the boilerplate.  The IPR
WG had to take seriously its duty to resolve some issues so the
documents would come out and then the boilerplate would happen.  
Getting this to be a priority took squeaking from those of us who 
needed documents to move.

Allison

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:24:26 +0100

> a "standards-goer" theory of a WG.  

If you say "deployability" I fully agree. Actually achieving deployment
is an operational job.

> Bill is speaking from the trenches, and he was a hero there.  If the

Indeed.

> with our complex system).

Yes, and that's why deployability is a criterion.

> needed documents to move.

I was all too aware of that as an author and WG chair.  That's an
argument for externalizing as much as possible of the boilerplate
from the BCP, I think, so that it can be changed as an operational
matter.

    Brian

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:50:52 +0100

Not 100% sure what you're saying, or how to implement it....

one of my personal goals is to have the rules be written in such a way 
that they minimize surprises, and are so easy to translate into "running 
code" that any IETF participant can check whatever we tell them to check 
and do the Right Thing...

Complexity is the enemy of the good.