Hi ralph, Thanks for your contribution. Do you think it would address this comment if the end of Section 1 (the introduction) included a paragraph such as... It is expected that upon publication, the content of this document will be transferred to the Working Groups Chairs' wiki, or this document be referenced there. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: WGChairs [mailto:wgchairs-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms > Sent: 03 December 2014 16:07 > To: draft-secretaries-good-practices@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: IETF WG Chairs; ietf > Subject: Re: Reply to LC comments on draft-secretaries-good-practices-06 > > Robert Sparks wrote a gen-art review of this document: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg88387.html > > I don't see that Robert's suggestion has been followed: > > > 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? > > The summary below does not take into account the suggestion that the contents > of draft-secretaries-good-practices be published on the WG chairs' wiki page > rather than in an RFC. Was that alternative considered? > > - Ralph > > On Nov 11, 2014, at 11:29 PM 11/11/14, Martin Vigoureux > <martin.vigoureux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > All, > > > > thank you for your reviews and comments on draft-secretaries-good-practices- > 06. > > Sorry for the delayed response. > > > > Summarizing the comments: > > > > * We noticed some opposition to moving this document as a BCP updating RFC > 2418. > > We have decided no to progress it as such. We have thus removed the > normative section (Section 2.), changed the intended status to Informational, > removed the update to RFC 2418 in the header and Abstract, and have moved > RFC 2418 as an Informative Reference. > > > > * We understood some clarifications were needed to more precisely position > the content of this document with regards to WG chairs responsibilities. > > * We also understood that some clarifications were needed with regards to the > relevancy of WG Secretaries, as well a who has responsibility over their > appointment and the delegation. > > There were bits and pieces of text covering some of these points. Text was also > missing. We have regrouped all the relevant text elements under a new section > (Applicability Statement) with the objective of clarifying the blurry points. > > > > * In response to specific comments we have also clarified the elements > pertaining to access to tools. > > > > * Finally, we have taken into account a good number of rewording suggestions. > > > > I am ready to go through each comment that was made, if desired. > > > > We have published a new version of the draft capturing all that. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-secretaries-good-practices-07 > > > > Thank you > > > > -m > >