On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:29 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com>
wrote:
At 16:39 06-11-2013, Arturo Servin wrote:
I do not think it is a call for the shepherd to decide to add it or not,
but to us as a group.
+1.
The document shepherd is there to see that the issues are addressed. What
I meant was that if I do not address an issue the document shepherd could,
for example, tell me "you forgot to address X", or "there is agreement to
add text about Y and you did not do it".
The document shepherd has the same responsibility as the editor, which is
to confirm that the document reflects consensus of the community on all
points (plus the IESG followup stuff). Authority (such as it is) to decide
what's in and what's out lies with the community. The worst that could
happen is that the author and shepherd disagree about what has consensus,
and at maximum the shepherd could note the discrepancy in the document's
writeup and let the IESG determine consensus on the disputed point.
Who is the shepherd for this one? The tracker shows none assigned.
Anyway, I agree that the document ought to mention, at least in an
appendix, the harassment and ombudsperson points. It's not a normative
document so there are no concerns about the IETF being bound to some
particular structure in that area.
I wonder, too, if this topic should be reflected in the Tao, which I
believe is now a Wiki.
-MSK