New draft charter for the RIPE DNS WG

>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <brad.knowles at skynet.be> writes:

    >> Jim and I have discussed this and we thought the charter should
    >> be adjusted to better reflect what the WG has been dealing with
    >> during the past couple of meetings and is going to do in the
    >> near future.

    Brad> 	I think that you've come up with a much better charter
    Brad> for this group.

Thank you, though Peter deserves all the credit for coming up with the
revised charter.

    Brad> 	Out of curiosity, do you think that the group should
    Brad> also help sponsor the development of open source tools to
    Brad> help monitor DNS-related issues, or evaluate DNS-related
    Brad> tools (either open source or commercial)?

Yes, absolutely. These are clearly things that will be of interest to
the WG membership and the DNS community as a whole. Do you feel
there's nothing in the revised charter which addresses your points? If
not, please suggest some text we could add or at least discuss.

Your question of sponsorship is a good one. But there's a problem
about how the term is defined. If you mean sponsor in the the sense of
encourage or nurture, then I would say yes, that's definitely
something the WG can and should do. If you mean hand over money, I'd
have to uhm and ahh. The WG has no money or budget and I'd be
pleasantly surprised if the members would be willing to put their
hands in their pockets. Deciding how any money raised got spent would
also present an administrative headache. These are not intractable
problems. My view is that if the WG decided it did want to fund tool
development or support, Peter and I would have to try and find a way
of making that happen. Some guidance from the WG would be welcome:
maybe this should be an agenda item for RIPE43?

One thing I would ask people on this list to do is give more feedback
and suggestions on what the WG should and should not do. Peter and I
have outlined our ideas for the future of the WG and had little
response so far. This is disappointing. I'm not sure if we should
interpret the silence as approval for our ideas or if there's little
interest in them from the WG membership.