Considering that mainly WG chairs are document shepherds (*), that would
be a good start.
(*) but this is absolutely not a requirement. See
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/document-shepherds.html
Regards, Benoit
Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it? I think the
role has grown
over the years.
Alia
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote:
Eggert, Lars <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger <eburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this
situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to
want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the
way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it.
what is "the fix"?
There is an obvious place to look for ideas: the directorates. See:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html
That would help if the AD job would not be a full time job. Sure.
And I see some suggestions in this email thread to rely more on the
directorates. That makes sense (but reviews vary greatly, however)
One track not mentioned in this thread is the document shepherd.
The document shepherd job, when done according to RFC 4858 (see specifically
section 3.2 and 3.3) would save a huge amount of time to the AD.
Recently, for a single draft, I spent hoouuurrrssss trying to track all the
open issues from the directorates and the IESG, and chasing the authors. On
top of taking some time, I had to be become expert for every single aspect
of the specification to evaluate whether the answer was right... while the
document shepherd has already the expertise.
We should probably stress (again) the importance of document shepherd
function...
Regards, Benoit