Hi,
I have never been a wg chair but I think that this document may be very
useful and helpful (at least it clarifies many things to me).
I have some comments:
- To me Section 2.1 (Formal Steps) looks better after 2.2 (Criteria of
Adoption).
- Section 2.2 does not set up a criteria. It just ask questions, it
would be good to set basic criteria at least.
- Section 2.2, The paragraph under "REMINDER" it is very important but I
am not convinced 100% how you raised the attention to it (by using
"reminder") But I think that it is very important to point out this.
- Section 3. Also not convinced about the "NOTE", it would be better to
me to include it as part of the text (similar to my comment of
"reminder" of section 2.2.
- There are some questions in different parts of the document, for
example "Shall it be adopted and entirely replace the current working
group draft? Shall the new ideas be incorporated into the work of the
working group through the normal editorial process? ..." I am not sure
the purpose of those, I imagine that they are helpful questions to ask,
if so I suggest to add something like this to clarify "Important
questions that WG chairs should ask or consider are 'Shall it be adopted
and entirely replace the current working group draft?'..."
Best regards,
as
On 5/28/13 6:32 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and
considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted for
publication.
We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns
associated with this part of the process. We are targeting this as
Informational (i.e. commentary on existing process, not new normative
definition of process) and would like your input.
What is not clear?
What have we got wrong?
How should we resolve the remaining editor notes?
Thanks,
Adrian
(per pro Dave)
[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt