[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] Overview
I am sorry getting in late in the discussion but my time has been allocated
to what Bret guessed in one of his mails - the DNSO Board election.
I found it extremely important that we work altogehter and finalise this
draft. (You have done a good job Bret with the drafting). As we have a
document we have something to react on which is much, much easier than just
to take part in a discussion and trying to catch up with where it is right
now.
While reading through the draft I have found some "holes" that I think we
need to have a look at before the draft can be turned into a MA (trying to
use the wording in the draft).
First of all there are concers mentionend so far on the list. I am not
going to adress these as I think others already are.
I have though some other concerns. One of them is timescales. In the draft
there are procedures describing voting mechanismns, MA, PQ etc but no
timeframes. I think there need to be. For instance look at 4.4 Procedural
Questions. It says that a Procedural Question should be answered before any
pending motion or other work can proceed. I agree on that but also see the
danger in not having a timeframe within the anwer should be made. If the
Chair for one reason or another wish to delay the work, he will just simply
not anweer the question! If there is a timeframe the members in the WG can
comply about a Chairman not fulfilling the job. There are other decribed
situations as well where timeframes are necessary.
In 3.4 Charter Review and Approval there is a timeframe of one week
mentioned. I think one week is to short. Within DNSO there are
constituencies which might wan´t to discuss a proposed WG charter before
they propose a change. And one week is then a too short period.
3.1 Purpose of WGs
I think you should add to the text that a WG also can be proposed by a
constituency.
4.3 Other formal Motions
Why don´t we note them in the subjct-line as proposed for MA and PQ? Suggestion
Motion to Amend MAM
Motion to Defer MD
Mtion to Refer to Subgroup MR [name of subgroup]
4.6 Real-Time Work
Why should they be governed by Robert´s Rules? To my understanding Robert
Rules is something so complicated that only a few poeple in the US know
them properly. And they are completely unknown to the rest of the world.
Why must we then adopt something that complicated? Can´t we find any
simpler way of working?
5.1 The purpose of reports and recommendation
.... provide impact analyses form the various contituencies....
Agree that the constituencies must have the possibility to have a say, the
question is just how? Shall there be some formal hearing with the
constituencies or....? This need to be clarified.
I do also think that we have an excellent chance to test if this document
works in practice. If it does it is probaly stable enough to put forward to
the NC. I therefore encourage the Chairs and all the members of this WG to
try to follow the procedures form now and on.
/ Eva
At 12:59 1999-10-08 -0700, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>To Working Group D:
>
>Shortly, I will forward to the list, in a separate message, a first, rough
>draft of a report for Working Group D.
>
>Theresa and I thought it important to move the work forward and felt that
>the best way was to craft a skeletal version of a Working Group's policies
>and procedures based on our discussions to date. Theresa and I have been
>through what will follow, and we think it is a fair starting point for
>further discussion.
>
>While we have tried to be true to the discussions we have had on how
>motions are made, who can vote, how will we vote/determine consensus,
>etc., some of the more minor things in this draft have never been
>discussed previously. Let's use this as an opportunity to discuss them.
>
>Methodology. Before you get into the draft, let me give you an overview
>of how it came to be. I started by reviewing the archives of our
>discussions to see where we had made progress. The archives are at
>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/index.html
>
>I then used Kent Crispin's "hack" of RFC 2418, on the IETF's policies and
>procedures, in order to get a structure for the document. I also borrowed
>some of the membership and WG formation sections from Kent's hack, which
>seemed in line with the group's thinking on those issues.
>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00041.html
>
>I then added the specifics of motions from some of our discussions on
>Robert's Rules (which seemed preferable for motions, discussions and
>voting to a large number of participants). Specifically, I incorporated
>sections of the proposal from Mark Langston and the discussion from Karl
>Auerbach, though I tried to formalize the "motions" a bit.
>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00223.html
>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00111.html
>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00244.html
>
>For the substance of what Working Group reports should look like, I used
>the list suggested by David Johnson.
>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00158.html
>
>For the background on the purpose and scope of the rules, I used the
>thread on "WG Principles," which begins at the URL below. (Use the
>threaded discussion formatting in the archives to follow the entire
>discussion.)
>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Archives/msg00006.html
>
>All of the messages were used to some degree, but the ones noted above are
>places where I specifically did some cutting and pasting.
>
> * * * * *
>
>While this should start the ball rolling, I propose that the next set of
>revisions to this draft be made by a small drafting group that does not
>include me. (This should ensure that there is no "runaway chair.") Please
>let me know if you'd be interested in serving on such a drafting
>committee.
>
>I assume that our final work product will look different after the
>discussions that follow. In fact, we should feel free to scrap this draft
>in its entirety if it is not workable or helpful in our discussions. After
>you've been through this, let's also think about what would be a
>reasonable timeline to get this draft completed.
>
>As a co-chair, I would entertain a motion that we discuss the draft that
>will follow. I'll look for a motion and a second.
>
> -- Bret
_______________________________________________________________________
Eva Frölich
e-mail: eva@nic-se.se
NIC-SE, Box 5774, 114 87 Stockholm
http://www.nic-se.se