Ballot for charter-ietf-mailmaint
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-04 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
I think having a maintenance group for email is a good idea (same as ipsecme, and lamps). It seems like there is always a 'good idea' in the various dispatches where the conclusion is that there is no where for the authors/proponents to go. I have one comment: It is not clear to me how the second para (which is a parenthetical), and the last bullet play in the same charter. The second para defines email to be the protocol which starts with RFC 5321 and RFC 5322. but doesn't include extensions. The last bullet says that a dedicated working group is preferred when updating the base documents (5321 and 5322). Seems like these two statements are contradictory? no? Unless mailmaint is the dedicated working group? But would you discuss chartering inside the charter for the working group you are forming?
Unlike some of the other reviewers, it makes sense to me to charter this as a standalone working group. It seems much in the mold of RTGWG insofar as it’s a place for work items that have some commonality but don’t rise to the level of needing the overhead of a full working group. I do see why the concern, but after reviewing the “in the manner of dispatch” bullet list a few times, I don’t see anything you should change. I guess it might be helpful to emphasize somehow that work shouldn’t be given agenda time unless the authors and chairs have a good faith belief that it falls in the first two bullets and not the last two bullets, the latter being your diving catch option. One nit, “consulting the responsible Area Director for guidance where appropriate” — it seems to me that either the charter should provide guidance about what constitutes “appropriate”, or you might as well drop this clause, as written I don’t see how it does anything to help guide the working group chairs or participants. Besides, it’s redundant with the later “express approval” paragraph. In fact, given the existence of that latter paragraph, maybe delete the “where appropriate” paragraph entirely? Failing that, reconcile the contradiction. The “change control“ sentence is also just a restatement of existing process, but I assume it’s there for a reason... Finally, I for one don’t have a problem with a tiny bit of lightheartedness in the wording, as long as it doesn’t create a barrier to understanding, which I don’t think “indigestible dumpling“ does. But then again, I like dumplings.
I tend to agree that having a WG to discuss issues related to email is generally a good idea. Just one comment. > Work proposed for MAILMAINT may arrive via direct proposals, or it may be referred via one or more DISPATCH-style working groups. Calls for Adoption are required for all work proposals. Isn't that how most work gets introduced in a WG? What is special about this WG to call this out?
I think this is a fine "experiment", although I find the argumentation a bit weak. The Responsible AD work to do for a "minor" piece of work as this WG would allow itself to work on, does not seem very different from that same AD sponsoring the document. But at least this new WG would provide a discussion venue and list for the work to get into better shape, which hopefully would help the AD :)
Thanks for the charter revisions in -00-06 to address my feedback.
Thanks for addressing my blocking points. This charter is better that previous one. I have questions/comments which I believe would improve the charter if answered/addressed - # is this a correct reading of the charter that this working group will only take on standard track items? and rest goes to the Independent stream? if yes, what is the criteria for such decision? If no, then I think it would need some wording to make it clear. # it says - The working group should discuss such proposals with the ISE and share the results of the working group’s consideration. Are we describing some different workflows that usually what is followed when documents goes to ISE? What if the proponents directly go to ISE without consulting with this working group? How does this WG tracks what goes to ISE? I seems, this expectation a bit unnecessary if we are not defining new workflow, and may be we should just relay on ISE to ping the working group of related work and in the IESG conflict resolution.
The 00-06 version is a big improvement, hence I am clearing my previous BLOCK. ``` The MAILMAINT (“Mail Maintenance”) working group will consider projects in the email space that are too small to warrant construction of a dedicated working group. This will take advantage of a common community to consider these proposals rather than forming a series of disparate but related communities. ``` The above text from the charter is redundant with the usual process for a WG. Consider removing it. Same for the following paragraph. `All new work will be announced` is it about soon-to-be-adopted or already-adopted work ? `Milestones will be used to track all approved work, including during chartering and rechartering.` also seems redundant with the normal WG process. Consider removing it.