On Sunday, August 10, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hello,
At 09:03 01-07-2014, Robert Sparks wrote:
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.
The chair should have WG milestones updated. Do ADs follow up with milestones in IETF? Then comes the chair priorities. We first focus on our work in WGs may not be well organised/delegated.
I did not find an answer to the last sentence. There is a comment from Dave Crocker about "reasonable IETF process" [1]. As Robert Sparks noted there have been two comments during the Last Call for the draft (including his review), and I note that the conclusion of Last Call was "no consensus".
I would appreciate some input about the following questions:
(a) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus to a WG Secretary?
The secretary can call on behalf of the chair if got the delegation. The WG has no problem as long the secretary is the secretary, however, IMHO only the chair should announce the results of such call. In one WG I get lost not knowing what is the result as not much announcements may be it is clear to old comers.
(b) Is it appropriate for a WG Chair to delegate calling consensus to a shepherd?
I think so, as long it is approved the name of the chair not by the secretary name.
(c) Is the determination of IETF Consensus based on public review?
It is both by chair announcement and public check/review which can be discussed at that time/place. It should always be announced on the list to let all community know about it. Hope chairs continue announce important processes.
AB