At 06:26 12-06-2014, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IETF Working Groups' Secretaries'
<draft-secretaries-good-practices-06.txt> as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2014-07-10. Exceptionally, comments
may be
I would give credit the anonymous reviewer who pointed this out. A
Working Group Chair has the responsibility to make decisions on
behalf of the working group. There are times where one or more
participants disagree with a decision which was taken. The question
of who is responsible comes into play if the WG Secretary took the
decision. There is the word "responsibility" in the heading of
Section 3 of the draft. I suggest avoiding that word in the draft as
I don't think it is okay to blame the WG Secretary for process
issues. Some people may consider that it is fair game to do that. I
suggest also reviewing the usage of the word "accountable".
In Section 3.1.1:
"Note that WG Chairs may wish to set policies for accepting
discussion's slot requests."
I suggest using the word "guidelines" instead of "policies".
Section 3.2 uses the term "WG document's adoption polls". I suggest
avoiding the word "polls" as it sounds like voting.
"Decisions are sometimes taken by WG Chairs during WG sessions."
It has been said that decisions are taken on the mailing list. The
above can be a problem when BCP 25 is invoked.
I would like to thank the authors for putting the effort in doing this work.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy