JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
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.
Very well. The PROTO mechanism does not change the WG Charter concept.
In fact, it changes nothing in the standards process. It is an
operational optimisation.
Brian
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):
(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.
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.
You cannot say something is the reference to follow, and not even allude
to it in the execution reporting questionnaire.
jfc
Brian
what may have cons and pros. I thought the WG Chair decides of
rough consensus and if the WG deliverables are ready in reference to
the Charter, the "contract" between the IETF/IESG/IAB community and
the WG. Am I wrong or is this changed ?
The word "Charter" is not even used in this Draft. The decisions and
comments sent to the IESG are therefore subject to the WG Chair's
position and not to the IESG requirements. I suggested the authors
the following two additions (tentative text provided). I have not
received a response yet while I face a case where this point is
important and urgent.
1. The first addition is that the proposed write-ups are presented
for quick comments to the WG.
2. two questions more are added, one on the way the Charter has been
respected, one on the care given not to favor one technical vision
over others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose competition in a
WG is not between propositions but for the best user needs support?
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf