Martin,
This is slightly a follow-up to the note I just posted, taking
Murray's comments up a level.
--On Wednesday, December 03, 2014 15:27 +0100 Martin Vigoureux
<martin(_dot_)vigoureux(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
Le 03/12/2014 03:45, Murray S. Kucherawy a écrit :
...
This
seems to be an accretion of possible functions of a WG
Secretary, but doesn't really explain how best to perform
those functions (which I infer from the filename).
I like to view it as: "it is good if a secretary does all that"
And that is _very_ normative too. IMO, a _good_ secretary does
whatever is assigned to him or her by the WG Chair and that will
help the WG progress its work. Good secretaries might propose
additional things that could be done to aid with the work, but
does not make those decisions and MUST NOT be able to cite this
document as justification for expanding the role beyond what the
WG Chair(s) believe is appropriate for the WG.
What is at issue here is not merely my general objection to
making more rules but the critical question of whether ADs, WG
participants, and the community in general can hold WG Chairs
accountable. As soon as a Secretary can act independently of
WG Chairs because some RFC says "it is good if a secretary does
all that", Chair accountability is lost.
Make whatever suggestions for things a WG Secretary might be
assigned to do that you like. Provide, as Murray suggests,
something of a tutorial about how to do those things (or at
least one or two ways to do them). But let's not do or say
anything that appears to give Secretaries independent authority.
...
In principle Chairs can delegate whatever they want.
Then say that and drop everything in this document that implies
functions that should be delegated to secretaries or that are
inherently delegated as the result of the claimed evolution the
role.
A different version of that comment is that it used to be
typical to have one WG Chair. We've now evolved to the point
where co-chairs are the norm and single ones unusual. This
document appears to be making the rule "two co-chairs and a
junior chair designated 'secretary'". Adding in document
authors, we could evolve to the point that every active
participant in a WG, and some inactive ones, gets a title. I
hope we don't.
...
Following discussions on 06 we have decided that this document
would not update 2418. We have produced 07 in that sense.
But the changes you have made don't eliminate enough of the
normative/ updating text to make that clear. The result is just
confusion.
Sorry, but, unlike Murray, I don't appreciate this document. I
think it is a solution to a problem that doesn't need solving, a
step backward in process flexibility and clarity, and that the
two jobs it could usefully do --providing advice about things a
secretary MIGHT be asked to do and guidance about how to do
them-- are either absent or get lost in the normative-appearing
noise.
john