--On Monday, February 14, 2022 17:29 +0100 Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2022-02-14, at 17:03, Salz, Rich > <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Does anyone have recent examples (use your own definition of >> recent; mine is like five years) where the *document >> shepherd* guided the draft through all of the other parts, as >> described in the RFC? > > The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed. > > I'd rephrase the question: > What can we do to make this more universally the case? Carsten, I'd urge a little caution. Explanations as part of whatever is done in WG Chair and Author training, definitely. Better and more systematic acknowledgments, possibly. Maybe an upgrade to the IESG's statements about what shepherds are expected to report about to more strongly emphasize the rest of the role. But Areas are different, working groups are different even within areas, documents from "dispatch"-like WGs or other AD-sponsored documents can be very different from ordinary WG ones, and so on. Some ADs might even decide there are documents they should shepherd personally or assign to another AD (something I'm generally opposed to if IESG members are authors or instigators). I'm also a bit concerned about anything that could be seen or used to either eliminate AD discretion or reduce AD accountability. So, while I think this discussion itself may be helpful in improving the situation (assuming the relevant people read this list), I'd be _very_ hesitant to see any formal procedural changes, including revisions to 4858, that would lock in a particular way of doing things and that could get in the way of making case-specific decisions and Doing the Right Thing. I don't think that is what you were proposing, but it is where discussions like this can easily lead. john
