Re: Work on Rules Language

Folks,

quick update... Since our request removes a milestone from the current 
charter, this nominally requires IESG approval. We've been working 
with Ted (who is now bringing this to the IESG), so there shouldn't be 
a problem. However, it'll take a little to get this through the process.

For now, we will go forward assuming the change will go through. This 
means that we

  - first, have to address comments from IESG review of our current
    documents,
  - once this is done, we'll continue discussion of possible re-charter
    (including the rules stuff).

Thanks,
   Markus


Markus Hofmann wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> the deadline for our rules language document was October last year. This 
> deadline has already been extended a few times. So we need to decide on 
> how to move on with this document.
> 
> Based on earlier discussions on the mailing list about status and work 
> needed, we checked with Ted (our AD) and discussed the following options:
> 
>  (1) Produce a minimal draft on "P" now, knowing that it will not
>      be sufficient and be obsolete if the group gets re-chartered
>      and if it continues to work on "P".
>      Pros: We would meet the charter item
>      Cons: Wastes time (assuming "P" will be in possible re-charter)
> 
>  (2) Extend the current deadline for another 2-4 months.
> 
>  (3) Remove this specific work item from our current charter and
>      put it up for consideration in a possible re-charter.
> 
> After discussions with Ted, we believe that choice (3) is the most 
> sensible, as it allows us to actually to do the work we believe needs 
> doing, and all this in a realistic time frame. We also won't waste any 
> time completing a document that won't meet our needs.
> 
> As such, we'll send a request to our AD and to the secretariat to remove 
> the OPES rules language from our current charter and include it in 
> discussions for a re-charter.
> 
> Any strong objections?
> 
> Thanks,
>   Markus
>