Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
I agree with Alissa's and Spencer's comments.
"The WG will attempt to come to a prompt resolution of the appropriate disposition of each proposal during the WG meeting." This could be read to imply that decisions about dispatching work occur only at WG meetings and not on the mailing list. I would hope the WG would be able to make some dispatching decisions on the list as well, or on the list in combination with F2F or virtual discussion.
I like this charter a lot. Nits: Wrapping is wrong in several places, please fix.
nit-nit: (which ADs may or may not choose to follow) /s/ (which ADs may or may not choose to progress)
- "The Security Dispatch working group is chartered to consider proposals for new work in the SEC area an if the work is appropriate for the IETF" Somehow, you want to add for new work not under the scope of a current WG charter. Editorial: correct "SEC area an if the work" - "In order to help the proposed new work succeed, the working group aims to assist the proposed new work in: 1. Providing a clear problem statement, motivation and deliverables. " The DISPATCH wording is way better: "Guiding principles for the proposed new work include: 1. Providing a clear problem statement, motivation and deliverables for the proposed new work." Justification: it's not up to the WG to provide a clear problem statement, but up to the proponents.
I looked at the proposed charter for SECDISPATCH, and didn't see a reference to https://tools.ietf.orOug/html/rfc7957. I'm guessing from the name that the intention is to charter a SEC-area equivalent to DISPATCH, but that's a guess. If the intention is that this works the same way DISPATCH works, it would be good to know that, and if it's not going to work the way DISPATCH works, it would be helpful to focus on what would be different. I notice that the numbered and unnumbered lists in the charter start wrapping about two thirds of the way through the lists.
Two very nitty nits. 1st para. s/in the SEC area an if/in the SEC area and if/ Numbered list line wrapping went bananas. I like the sentence about precedence, a LOT!