RE: LDUP WG Meeting Minutes

>12) WG Charter Bashing
>
>The room consensus was that the WG charter needs to be revised to
>address:

While I believe there is consensus that the LDUP WG charter needs to
revised, I do not believe there is any consensus as to how the charter
should be revised.  In particular, I do not believe there is yet
consensus on which items should or should not be added/modified/removed.
No specific charter revision was proposed or discussed at the meeting.

>        + actual versus anticipated publication of revisions to WG 
>documents
>        + the formation of the LDUP Access Control Design Team
>        + the current dependency of the WG charter on the Access
Control
>        deliverables of the soon-to-conclude LDAPEXT WG
>        + the LDAPv3 framing/grouping concept
>        + an administrative model for replication
>        + replication-relevant access control input from the
>        LDUP Access Control Design Team

Room consensus doesn't mean that any decisions have been made by the WG.
To me,
this term only means that there was a hum of agreement that something
needed to
be included in a proposed charter revision for the WG to consider. Even
if such
additions, deletions, and/or modifications aren't actually accepted by
the WG
(because WG consensus can shift during discussions), the charter
revision that
actually is accepted by the WG will have addressed those issues by
either
including or excluding them. If included, the WG is addressing the issue
by
explicitly making some statement about them - that it either will or
will not
produce deliverables related to the resolving the issue. If excluded,
the WG
is making an implicit statement about them - that they are out of scope.

The meeting minutes didn't attempt to state that a specific revision was
available
for review because none was required to discuss the WG Charter. The
agenda item
title signifies that the WG Charter would be discussed. Without other
qualifications,
the term "WG Charter" means the *current* WG Charter which requires no
written
proposal to the WG because its available online at the IETF web site.

Therefore, I don't believe that the meeting minutes need to change to
reflect
room consensus during the meeting.

Chris.

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Apple;Christopher
FN:Chris Apple ([email protected])
TEL;HOME;VOICE:(215) 873-0850
TEL;CELL;VOICE:(610) 585-4241
ADR;WORK:;;214 New Street, Apt 4-N;Philadelphia;PA;19106;United States of America
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:214 New Street, Apt 4-N=0D=0APhiladelphia, PA 19106=0D=0AUnited States of Am=
erica
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[email protected]
REV:20011217T233830Z
END:VCARD