Re: candidate MASS charter

[Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew,

> >  That is tempting to add to the charter, yes, but I would
> >  like to very strongly encourage folks not to think in
> >  terms of game-playing or subtleties for an IETF working
> >  group charter.
>  I think putting this in the charter is a sure-fire way of
>  getting people to take aim at the charter and shooting down
>  the wg proposal.

"putting this"?  what does the 'this' refer to.


>  How about making the first milestone a working group decision
>  on IPR? As in, the wg is to decide either no licensed IPR, or
>  licensed IPR compatible with an explicit list of software
>  licenses, or any licensed IPR.

That sounds fine, except that it won't work .

Better still, it will probably introduce a time-consuming 
rathole.

You are suggesting that the working group set some sort of 
abstract policy on a topic about which the working group, as a 
while, has little expertise (IPR) and in the absence of any 
specific IPR-related details on which it would be basing such a 
decision.

The sort of decision you are suggesting comes about when there is 
specific proposed specification and a broad community review of 
it. 

d/
--
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://brandenburg.com>