As a fairly new WG Chair, I have always had the impression that
submitting to the IESG a document that had not been through strong
editorial review for quality and readability was unacceptable. Perhaps
my ADs have done a good job of setting expectations.
I do know that spending the time before a draft gets into the IESG/RFC
cycle makes the whole process smoother. Also, I would hope IESG members
would talk to the chairs first privately on working on draft quality.
tim
On 11/12/15 6:52 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
I've been told by some current WG chairs that there's a tension between
the goal of being a neutral party (for consensus leadership) and the
goal of improving quality of the drafts. If there are organizational
messages that discourage the chairs from using their technical acumen to
ensure the review is well targeted and far-reaching enough (as is needed
especially for problem drafts), this could account for some of the
quality issues.
I'd like to see the WG chairs very technically empowered, while also
trusted to be fair when they manage consensus. If they can't do both,
it may be hard especially hard to guide/lead/manage the WG when dealing
with drafts with quality problems.
Allison