How about implementation reports that are done by the chairs or one chair? Content has to come from a mix of implementers. -Kathleen -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joel jaeggli Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 12:45 PM To: Ted Lemon Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Proper credit for work done -- on finding chairs (was CHANGE THE JOB) 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. >