How about implementation reports that are done by the chairs or one chair?
Content has to come from a mix of implementers.
-Kathleen
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of joel jaeggli
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 12:45 PM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Proper credit for work done -- on finding chairs (was CHANGE THE
JOB)
On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Ted Lemon <ted(_dot_)lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Mary Barnes
<mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
[MB] Can you clue us in as to what "substantial action" has been taken?
[/MB]
I thought we sent something around about that. ADs and WG chairs are
encouraged to ask for directorate reviews for certain directorates (possibly
all directorates, I can't remember) prior to working group last call. This
is in the form of an experiment, not a new policy; we'll see how it goes.
We've done a number of other things in the same vein-e.g., document shepherds
are now being invited onto telechats, so that they can do the work of
tracking action items for the authors rather than the AD doing it.
I think there were other items on the list, but I don't remember them off the
top of my head. The point is, if anybody thinks the IESG is a deer in the
headlights on this issue, that's not the case-we are actively trying to do
things to ameliorate the situation.
The revision of the qualifications provided to the nomcom was signficant.
experiments with narrative shepherds reports.
experiments with post-ietf working-group summaries performed by chairs.