Re: text suggested by ADs
2005-05-08 05:26:19
Hi Dave,
Let me try the simplest summary possible:
If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF
participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to
those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it.
Authority always comes with responsibility. In this case it should simply be
that the authority to block a group has a responsibility to interact with that
group.
Directly.
This seems pretty reasonable to me, and I think that this is one of
the reasons why the IESG (pre-me) chose to implement the I-D tracker.
I agree that it might be even better to generate mail to the WG
mailing list (some folks may read the list but not follow documents
in the tracker), but I'm not sure about the best way to implement
this...
The most common place where I personally block and/or delay a WG
document is AD Review. I only issue discusses on a small fraction of
the documents that come to the IESG, but I return AD review comments
(blocking or non-blocking) on a much higher fraction of the documents
that I am asked to shepherd.
For some time, I have been sending my AD review comments to the WG
mailing lists, rather than just to the authors and WG chairs, and it
seems to work quite well. I also copy those comments into the
tracker, so that folks who are interested in the status of the
document can find them.
Most of the time, my AD review comments don't spark any debate, but I
think that doing this allows the WG to argue with me if they disagree
with my comments. It also helps to improve visibility into how/why
the document is being modified after the WG has declared it "done".
I think that this practice may also increase WG awareness of the
fact that there is now an action item for their editor, and that
public scrutiny may result in the editor turning the document around
more quickly (I have no statistics to back this up, it is just an
impression).
I think that it would also be helpful to send IESG discusses and
comments directly to the WGs (for all of the same reasons), and there
are two ways that I think we could accomplish this:
(1) When an AD has an open discuss that he or she does not clear
during the telechat, he or she could send a copy of that discuss to
the WG mailing list directly. This is quite direct, but might be a
bit tricky in practice due to spam filters, etc. because the AD may
not be a member of the mailing list in question. It is also more
likely to suffer from human error or omission, because the tracker is
set-up to show us the documents for which we are responsible AD, not
those for which we currently hold discusses.
- or -
(2) After the document appears on a telechat, the responsible AD
could send any remaining IESG discusses and comments to the WG
mailing list (probably in a single message), cc:ing the ADs who
entered those discusses or comments. I sometimes do this already,
and it typically seems to work well. If folks think that it would be
useful (for efficiency or visibility), I'd be happy to start doing it
for every one of my documents that still has discusses open after the
telechat. This approach would also resolve an outstanding issue with
the PROTO process, by making it clear when it is time for the WG
chairs to start working to resolve the discuss issues. This approach
is somewhat less direct, but perhaps more practical than option (1).
It may be subject to some human error, but the AD will see the
document in an "IESG Review" stage each time he or she enters the
tracker, so he or she will have an opportunity to notice his or her
omission.
- or -
(3) We could modify the I-D Tracker so that it will send mail to the
mailing list at one of two points: (a) whenever anyone enters a
discuss position, or (b) whenever a discuss position remains after
the documents has been on a telechat. This is both indirect and
impersonal, but not subject to human error.
Thoughts? Do other people think that it would help (efficiency or
visibility) for all discusses to be sent to the WG mailing lists?
Any thoughts on which of the three approaches above would work better?
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: text suggested by ADs, (continued)
Re: text suggested by ADs, Sam Hartman
Re: text suggested by ADs, Sam Hartman
Re: text suggested by ADs, Sam Hartman
Re: text suggested by ADs, Pekka Savola
Re: text suggested by ADs, Bill Fenner
Re: text suggested by ADs, Kai Henningsen
RE: text suggested by ADs, Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)
RE: text suggested by ADs, Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)
Re: text suggested by ADs, John Loughney
|
|
|