On 13/02/2022 22:26, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Document shepherds are quite often one of the WG chairs. And this is something that I try to avoid as an AD by pushing the WG participants to step forward with the help of the chairs.
Nothing of course "against" the WG chairs but more to get more people on board with the IETF processes and hopefully getting some shepherds into a WG chair position or other position.
To be honest, this is not really easy to find volunteers to be shepherd, but sometimes it works ;-)
My experience is otherwise (Routing, Ops WGs). I think it rare for a WG
Chair to be shepherd and I often see a Chair asking for a volunteer to
be shepherd and getting one, perhaps a Chair of another WG. (I am
amazed, looking at the Datatracker, how many names there are that I
think of as document authors who are actually WG Chairs of another WG).
Where the process may be less good is the production of the shepherd
report and discussion thereof, taking time and not having a mechanism
for resolution of disagreements between Shepherd and WG Chairs.
Tom Petch
Regards
-éric
On 13/02/2022, 23:02, "ietf on behalf of Donald Eastlake" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 4:03 PM Salz, Rich
<rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> That RFC, which I got from reading the Tao, seems very updated. In my experience, the WG chair usually does the writeup and the responsible AD handles the followups. Is that generally true?
I think you mean "outdated", not "updated". The Shepherd normally does
the write-up, it is just that it is common for a Chair to be appointed
Shepherd. Follow-ups are a complex multi-party process. If the
Authors are on the ball, there may be nothing for the Shepherd to do
that the authors are not already following up.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
