I strongly support the opinion that this draft is not ready
to become a BCP. I do think it's useful to describe a WG
Secretary's possible roles in more detail, so publishing
this as Informational is a good idea.
I see no need for a formal update to RFC 2418. That created
the Secretary role, and it doesn't need stating that WG Chairs
can delegate to the Secretary. So Section 2 of the draft doesn't
need to be normative at all.
Brian
On 02/07/2014 04:03, Robert Sparks wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-secretaries-good-practices-06
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 1 July 2014
> IETF LC End Date: 10 July 2014
> IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as a
> Best Current Practice
>
> The draft is currently targeting BCP in order to update the
> description of a working group secretary in RFC2418. Several
> reviewers have noted that the remainder of the document is good
> information, but could be confused with process definition in a BCP
> document. Splitting the document into a short simple update of
> RFC2418, and an informational document containing the rest of the
> material would avoid that potential confusion and simplify any
> remaining discussions around process impact.
>
> For the update to RFC2418:
>
> The current proposed text says section 2 of this document
> updates the whole section 6.2 of RFC2418. It's not clear if
> that means adds to, or replaces. I suggest you say "replaces".
>
> There is text that affects the secretarial role in section 6.1.
> Should any of that be updated? In particular, given the discussion
> of delegation in the reviews of this document, should delegation
> be discussed more explicitly in this section? This would be a
> good place to discuss whether it's appropriate for a chair to
> delegate calling consensus to a secretary.
>
> For the good practices:
>
> This could well have been formulated "Here are some good ways
> a chair can run a meeting and deal with between meeting tasks,
> and a secretary can take on doing many of these things". It
> might have more of an effect improving meetings if it were cast
> that way since the majority of working groups currently don't
> utilize secretaries.
>
> Please call out making accurate conflict lists (both conflicting
> groups, and lists of people who need to not be conflicted) in the
> session request submission task (first bullet of 3.1.1)
>
> The section on 'Doing "Chair-like" work' calls out closing WG
> adoption polls and WG Last Calls as an example. If the intent
> was to say the Secretary makes the consensus calls to close
> these tasks, say so. If it was just to make sure that the
> call was captured correctly in a list message, or minutes,
> say that.
>
> Nit: The sentence "Over time, the WG Secretary role's has greatly
> evolved to include a number of additonal functions and responsibities
> which are critical to the smooth operation of IETF WGs." is too long.
> It risks confusing whether the functions and responsibilites are
> critical or if the WG Secretary roles are critical. I think you meant
> the former, and that the Secretary can help ensure they're carried
> out.
>
> Finally, some observations that might be useful in the remainder
> of the discussion of this draft (but not suggestions to change
> the content of the draft directly):
>
> The draft filename risks tools interpreting this as being targeted
> at a group named 'good'.
>
> The discussion of having a person be a secretary for more than
> one group, or a group having more than one secretary made me go
> look what the current situation is. To save others the time of
> looking at each WG page separately, here's the compilation for
> the active working groups, first organized by people (to see
> who is a secretary for more than one group), then by group
> (to see which groups have more than one secretary):
>
> {<Person: Samuel Weiler>: [u'sidr'],
> <Person: Sam Aldrin>: [u'nvo3'],
> <Person: Tom Haynes>: [u'nfsv4'],
> <Person: Susan Hares>: [u'trill'],
> <Person: Sheng Jiang>: [u'dhc'],
> <Person: S Moonesamy>: [u'hybi'],
> <Person: Tom Taylor>: [u'avtcore'],
> <Person: David Sinicrope>: [u'pwe3'],
> <Person: Jun Bi>: [u'savi'],
> <Person: Martin Vigoureux>: [u'mpls'],
> <Person: Daniel King>: [u'l3vpn', u'pce'],
> <Person: Matt Lepinski>: [u'dane'],
> <Person: Daniele Ceccarelli>: [u'ccamp'],
> <Person: Andrew McLachlan>: [u'l2vpn'],
> <Person: Simon Josefsson>: [u'kitten'],
> <Person: Wassim Haddad>: [u'lisp'],
> <Person: David Waltermire>: [u'mile'],
> <Person: Ulrich Herberg>: [u'manet'],
> <Person: Damien Saucez>: [u'lisp']}
>
> {u'avtcore': [<Person: Tom Taylor>],
> u'ccamp': [<Person: Daniele Ceccarelli>],
> u'dane': [<Person: Matt Lepinski>],
> u'dhc': [<Person: Sheng Jiang>],
> u'hybi': [<Person: S Moonesamy>],
> u'kitten': [<Person: Simon Josefsson>],
> u'l2vpn': [<Person: Andrew McLachlan>],
> u'l3vpn': [<Person: Daniel King>],
> u'lisp': [<Person: Damien Saucez>, <Person: Wassim Haddad>],
> u'manet': [<Person: Ulrich Herberg>],
> u'mile': [<Person: David Waltermire>],
> u'mpls': [<Person: Martin Vigoureux>],
> u'nfsv4': [<Person: Tom Haynes>],
> u'nvo3': [<Person: Sam Aldrin>],
> u'pce': [<Person: Daniel King>],
> u'pwe3': [<Person: David Sinicrope>],
> u'savi': [<Person: Jun Bi>],
> u'sidr': [<Person: Samuel Weiler>],
> u'trill': [<Person: Susan Hares>]}
>
> Again, that's just a snapshot of the current moment - it
> doesn't speak to history.
>
> Also, as best I can tell, there's been ONE post in response
> to this IETF LC on ietf general, and a lot of discussion in
> other places (78 messages so far on wgchairs - see:
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=wgchairs&q=draft-secretaries-good-practices>
> ). It might be good for the
> shepherd to bring a summary of those discussions to the IETF list,
> and perhaps steer the remaining conversation that direction?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>