JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt
The Draft above seems already to be used in some areas to rule a
procedure to decrease the AD's working load and to speed up the
reviewing process. It gives more importance to the WG Chair's personal
opinion,
No, it does not do that - it moves some procedural responsibility to
the PROTO shepherd, but it doesn't change either the WG Chair's duty
to judge WG consensus or the AD's responsibility to review the draft
for the IESG.
Brian
what may have cons and pros. I thought the WG Chair decides of
rough consensus and if the WG deliverables are ready in reference to the
Charter, the "contract" between the IETF/IESG/IAB community and the WG.
Am I wrong or is this changed ?
The word "Charter" is not even used in this Draft. The decisions and
comments sent to the IESG are therefore subject to the WG Chair's
position and not to the IESG requirements. I suggested the authors the
following two additions (tentative text provided). I have not received a
response yet while I face a case where this point is important and urgent.
1. The first addition is that the proposed write-ups are presented for
quick comments to the WG.
2. two questions more are added, one on the way the Charter has been
respected, one on the care given not to favor one technical vision over
others (one might refer to RFC 3869). I suppose competition in a WG is
not between propositions but for the best user needs support?
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf