Re: IESG Area Structure and Last night's missing question

Alia Atlas <akatlas(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
    > We *have* to grow more WG chairs and secretaries and encourage others
    > to try shepherding a draft or more to start learning more about the
    > process.  We also need to have some better training on the *why* behind
    > much of the process, because
    > there's a lot of "one size doesn't fit all" and without understanding
    > the reasons and
    > motivations, it's easy to do the process and fail to meet the goals.

    > I know that I tend to think that we have a lot of the same WG chairs;
    > when I did
    > numbers for Routing, we have 11 new WG chairs out of 45 total since I
    > became an AD.

Yes... but what if you remove Adrian, and Stewart, and other people who have
already been ADs or IAB or ... from the list...

I don't a problem with having an out-of-WG document shepherd.
There might be more challenges at times, but I think that will be good.

I would like some larger carrot for being document shepherd.
I would love to have a(n ietf-wide) list of people willing to be a shepherd
that I could draw upon.

At one point we discussed whether documents should always ACK WG chairs
and Shephards by default. I.e. the RFC editor would put it it if it was
missing.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature