On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>
wrote:
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...
Actually, it's 11 new not including Stewart. None of those 11 have been
ADs or IAB.
Granted, Pat Thaler is active in similar roles in the IEEE. I can give
you the details,
if you'd like ;-) http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/#rtg but the point is
that this really really
matters. We have to grow more people into leadership roles and recognize
that many
of them won't be interested in the AD role for a long time, if ever. Every
time that a
WG chair is appointed, it's an opportunity for the area, not just the WG.
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.
Heck, I'd be happy with more non-WG Chair shepherds whether in or out of
area.
Of course, I've been there too and if one is progressing just a few drafts,
frequently
the work to be the draft shepherd may look like less than the work to go
find, much
less teach, someone else to be a shepherd.
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.
A list would be useful.
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.
I'd like larger carrots for lots of things :-) Partly, I think it is
about providing public
recognition and thanks - rather than needing a permanent tombstone.
In a culture that depends in part on reputation, public appreciation can be
useful.
Regards,
Alia
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software
Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-