On 2005-08-20 10:10 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin said the following: > At 16:13 19/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt >>> >>>The Draft above seems already to be used in some areas to rule a >>>procedure to decrease the AD's working load and to speed up the >>>reviewing process. It gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal opinion, >> >>No, it does not do that - it moves some procedural responsibility to >>the PROTO shepherd, but it doesn't change either the WG Chair's duty >>to judge WG consensus or the AD's responsibility to review the draft >>for the IESG. > > Sorry, Brian - you comment but you do not respond. > > 1. comment: yes it gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal > opinion (but this is not a problem if this is consistently organised): I believe this is not the case; it is certainly not the intention. I don't see where the document gives grounds for your statement here, either. As I don't believe this premise to be valid, your following conclusions don't hold either: > (1) due to the load on ADs, this may lead to more delegation of the > AD to the Shepherding Chair, however the Chair has more time: this is > no problem if the WG knows the report (AD delegates to Chair who > writes and can less review, Chair is to delegate part of the > reviewing to WG). (2) the opinion of the Chair becomes the reference > in the questionnaire, no more the Charter the Draft overlooks. The questionnaire summarises some things a chair should already be considering when requesting publication, it doesn't add any new powers. It is simply a best common practice for the chair to provide this information to the AD, as a complement to other information (AD review and reviews by others, mailing list discussions, issue tracker information, and more... ) > 2. question: is the Charter still the reference when reporting to the > IESG? If no this is a big change in the IETF. If yes, then this must > translate into the reporting questionnaire. At least in asking the > way the Charter has been respected in all technical inclusiveness. There are many implicit assumptions that of course could be made explicit in the questionnaire - those which are currently there have been found good, useful and relevant by chairs and ADs. My personal take is that any charter violations should have been taken up with the AD far in advance of the request to publish; on the other hand, it wouldn't bother me too much to add such a question to the questionnaire as long as it doesn't lead to twentyfourteen other implicit assumptions being added as explicit questions. That would change this questionnaire from a useful tool to a useless piece of extra formalism. > You cannot say something is the reference to follow, and not even > allude to it in the execution reporting questionnaire. I think your interpretation of this questionnaire as an "execution reporting questionnaire" is flawed. This is just a few pieces of information out of the many which are relevant in considering the advancement of a particular document, nothing more. Henrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf