[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] Several things...
Raul Echeberria wrote:
> I'm in this list from last november and I have not understood the work of
> this group yet. I'll read your reports from now.
Thanks for the query, Raul. A little overview for those recently joining is
certainly in order. First, most of the WG's efforts took place prior to
November. Our mandate was to figure out the best way for WGs to develop
proposed policies and prepare reports and recommendations for the Names
Council. In the archives,
you'll find the history of our efforts to date. We've considered what a
report to the NC should look like, whether WGs should be open to all or
nominated by the NCs, whether we should vote on items or look for consensus,
and whether something like "Robert's Rules or Order" should be adopted.
> Could you explain me what is the process to draft those documents and who
> are the authors, please?
The original WG draft (0.1) was prepared by me, based primarily on a
contribution from Kent Crispin (which was based, in turn, on IETF
procedures), and contributions from Mark Langston (on voting) and David
Johnson (on what a report should look like). Numerous other contributions
went into the draft.
After 0.1 was posted, there was a general feeling that, while voting seemed
like a good idea while we were discussing it, the details that went into
making it work on a mailing list made it unpalatable. At an in-person
meeting in Los Angeles and in discussions immediately thereafter, we decided
to move toward a more informal approach, giving leadership discretion to the
WG Chair, but having a way to replace the Chair should she or he take action
not authorized by the group. That seemed like a good compromise.
We tasked a small working group, composed of volunteers, with examining the
problem of replacing the Chair as a check on power.
> I'm surprised because there is a draft dated on february 2000 and I didn't
> see it before. Did you circulate it in the wg-d list?
The February version (0.2) was shared with the small working group, and it
mirrors the latest version (0.3) with the exception of a new provision for
replacing a WG Chair.
* * * * *
We've started and stopped on this project for some time, and I take
responsibility for not moving this forward faster. My apologies. I would
very much like to move this project to the finish as quickly as possible and
will devote whatever time and energy necessary to make that possible.
With that history, I invite you and everyone else to review the latest draft
and make any suggestions or revisions. Also, if you think it's about right,
please let me know that too.
Anyone who has been involved in either or both of WG-B or WG-C, I especially
encourage you to review your experience and let the group know what you
would do differently and what worked well. We should make sure this draft
gets the benefit of the hard work that went into previous efforts.