On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [MB] Can you clue us in as to what "substantial action" has been taken? [/MB] > > I thought we sent something around about that. ADs and WG chairs are encouraged to ask for directorate reviews for certain directorates (possibly all directorates, I can't remember) prior to working group last call. This is in the form of an experiment, not a new policy; we'll see how it goes. > > We've done a number of other things in the same vein—e.g., document shepherds are now being invited onto telechats, so that they can do the work of tracking action items for the authors rather than the AD doing it. > > I think there were other items on the list, but I don't remember them off the top of my head. The point is, if anybody thinks the IESG is a deer in the headlights on this issue, that's not the case—we are actively trying to do things to ameliorate the situation. The revision of the qualifications provided to the nomcom was signficant. experiments with narrative shepherds reports. experiments with post-ietf working-group summaries performed by chairs. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail