--On Wednesday, December 03, 2014 07:44 -0800 Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > I will repeat my suggestions from the previous review cycle > for this document: > > Here are my opinions on how to proceed... > > First, it's important that RFC 2418 be updated to allow for a > WG secretary to take on greater responsibilities, at the > discretion of the WG chairs. It's also important that the > update include formal recognition that WG secretaries should > be given access to WG support tools. Therefore, I recommend > that RFC 2418 be updated with a short RFC that expands the > potential role for WG secretaries and that formally grants > permission for secretaries to have access to WG tools. I continue to hope that we have not gotten so procedurally ossified that a decision to give Secretaries access to some tools requires an update to RFC 2418 rather than a simple announcement by the IESG to the community (or even case-by-case decisions by a relevant AD). But, if that is what it takes, I like Ralph's suggestion which would be, at worst, harmless clutter. > Second, because the [the document contains] a series of > recommendations that may not apply to all WGs and that may > change over time, I recommend that this very useful material > be integrated into the IETF wiki "Working Group Chairs' Page" > <http://www.ietf.org/wg/chairs-page.html> An excellent suggestion, IMO. And, again, the observation that this way suggested months ago and not responded to either in the document or on-list is an example of what caused me to infer that feedback was being ignored. Last Calls of individual submissions of this sort of procedural document are just too expensive for the community to do a second one until and unless the authors have made a good-faith and public effort to respond to legitimate comments from earlier rounds. If the authors and/or Shepherd don't feel that people like Ralph or myself have sufficient experience for our comments to be treated as legitimate and serious then they should say so and we can all move on. best, john