Process Document Consolidation
charter-ietf-procon-01

Yes

Éric Vyncke
Ketan Talaulikar
Roman Danyliw
(Erik Kline)
(Paul Wouters)

No Objection

Andy Newton
Deb Cooley
Gorry Fairhurst
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
Mahesh Jethanandani
Mohamed Boucadair

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-01 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

Éric Vyncke
Yes
Ketan Talaulikar
Yes
Roman Danyliw
Yes
Andy Newton
No Objection
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Gorry Fairhurst
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Comment (2025-06-23 for -00-01) Sent 
"RFC2026", paragraph 2

* Treatment of milestones in Working Group charters
When it says "treatment," it is not clear what it is treating. Is it addressing the question of whether milestones are required for WG charters? Or is that milestones are required, but how they should be interpreted, e.g., they are guidelines to when the work may be started/completed, will be discussed by the WG?
Mohamed Boucadair
No Objection
Comment (2025-06-22 for -00-01) Sent 
My comments raised against the previous review round still apply for this version. I'm thus reiterating them here: 

* Milestones are used for different purposes. A more structural change would be to provide provisions for WGs to set priorities without rechartering (of course, anchored in WG charter scope). If we had that change, then the optionality of milestones would be OK. Does the current milestone bullet also cover support for means to set WG-defined priorities or this is about the specific proposal listed in Roman's ballot?

* What is the motivation for the item about the guidance to adopt documents? Are there reported issues/abuses/etc.?

* For the guidance to adopt documents, not sure if freezing more process details in an RFC is a good approach. Maybe key principles can make it to the RFC but more detailed procedures are better managed in an online page? Do we expect the discussion to also cover whether we offload (rather than add more text to reference RFCs) to other forms?
Erik Kline Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-01) Not sent 

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Paul Wouters Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            Yes
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                Yes 
                                
                                    (2025-06-25 for -00-01)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
I'm a bit worried that some cleanup/merge is not straightforward without actually tackling the non-editorial parts, especially around the appeal process, as there are conflicting texts and it is not always clear that an Updates: affect only specific parts of an older doc and what the process truly is at the moment. I would hope such discussion are in scope - I can't really see how these would not be. But the use of "editorial" thus worries me a lot.