Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Richard Barnes' Block on charter-ietf-dmarc-00-00: (with BLOCK)

From: "Richard Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:27:03 -0700

Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dmarc-00-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dmarc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems like a reasonable compromise with the overall DMARC effort. 
However, this charter seems to provide pretty huge scope.  Can it be cut
up into a few chunks?  It already specifies phases; perhaps we could
charter only the first phase now?  What's the compelling reason to
charter all this work in one fell swoop?

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:31:28 -0400

> charter all this work in one fell swoop?

We have energy to do it, and we know what we want to get done.

What's the value in breaking it up?

Barry

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:38:02 -0700 (PDT)

> What's the value in breaking it up?

+1

I see no value in breaking it up. I also see substantional harm; like it
or not, this work has to be conducted while being mindful of a very big
"big picture", and further divisions may make that difficult.

In fact if anything I think the scope is going to prove to be too limited,
although in exactly what ways is hard to say right now.

It's best to start with a charter that covers the necessary and little more
and expand as needed. I think this charter achieves this goal.

				Ned

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:51:23 -0700

> What's the value in breaking it up?

Right.

1.  There is a limited agreement on the fine-grained details of work to
do initially, although there's a better sense of that than there was the
last time we tried to charter.  That said, there is a certain amount of
'get started and figure out the fine-grained tasks as we progress.'
This works against a highly constrained charter.

2.  The tasks that /are/ in the charter are complementary.  I, too, do
not see the benefit of gating on a 'first' set of tasks.  If we had a
sense of how the 'early' work might alter the later work, then a
re-chartering effort might make sense.  Absent that, it's merely
imposing significant additional administrative overhead, but satisfying
no apparent need.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 14:57:24 -0400

Ok, folks, got the message.  Block has been cleared.