Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2007-01-17 16:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> I think you are deeply misunderstanding how PROTO shepherding is
>>> supposed to work.
>>
>> That's a pretty basic disconnect.
>>
>> Perhaps you can summarize how it is supposed to work?
>
> The way it's described in draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding,
> which makes it plain to me that the shepherd is taking
> responsibility for ensuring that issues are resolved through
> open process.
I presume Brian wants to call our attention to:
]
] (3.e) The Document Shepherd then communicates the DISCUSS and
] COMMENT items to the document editors and the working group,
] alerting them of any changes to the document that have
] accumulated during IESG processing, such as "Notes to the RFC
] Editor." If any changes will be substantive, the Document
] Shepherd, in consultation with the Responsible Area Director,
] as during other stages, MUST seek working group consensus.
("then" is perhaps a bit out of context: see the named document.)
Note the steps 3.[abcd] which precede it.
I sense a perception that not all of this is happening. IMHO, we
need to avoid the "quick fix" of claiming an automated posting to the
mailing-list can substitute for these steps. Nonetheless, it might be
that an automated notification that a DISCUSS remains outstanding
some number of days after the telechat could help bring immediacy to
the process...
--
John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf