[Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-secretaries-good-practices-06
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 01 July 2014 16:04 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13E41A0391; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.751
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qfumXaEoEJ1E; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AA491A0367; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-57-89-168.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.89.168]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s61G3xO3026994 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Jul 2014 11:04:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-173-57-89-168.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.89.168] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <53B2DBEE.8070806@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:03:58 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-secretaries-good-practices@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qUXolKK3UgJVX5xZMubFX36GgeU
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-secretaries-good-practices-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:04:17 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-secretaries-good-practices-06 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 1 July 2014 IETF LC End Date: 10 July 2014 IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled for a telechat Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as a Best Current Practice The draft is currently targeting BCP in order to update the description of a working group secretary in RFC2418. Several reviewers have noted that the remainder of the document is good information, but could be confused with process definition in a BCP document. Splitting the document into a short simple update of RFC2418, and an informational document containing the rest of the material would avoid that potential confusion and simplify any remaining discussions around process impact. For the update to RFC2418: The current proposed text says section 2 of this document updates the whole section 6.2 of RFC2418. It's not clear if that means adds to, or replaces. I suggest you say "replaces". There is text that affects the secretarial role in section 6.1. Should any of that be updated? In particular, given the discussion of delegation in the reviews of this document, should delegation be discussed more explicitly in this section? This would be a good place to discuss whether it's appropriate for a chair to delegate calling consensus to a secretary. For the good practices: This could well have been formulated "Here are some good ways a chair can run a meeting and deal with between meeting tasks, and a secretary can take on doing many of these things". It might have more of an effect improving meetings if it were cast that way since the majority of working groups currently don't utilize secretaries. Please call out making accurate conflict lists (both conflicting groups, and lists of people who need to not be conflicted) in the session request submission task (first bullet of 3.1.1) The section on 'Doing "Chair-like" work' calls out closing WG adoption polls and WG Last Calls as an example. If the intent was to say the Secretary makes the consensus calls to close these tasks, say so. If it was just to make sure that the call was captured correctly in a list message, or minutes, say that. Nit: The sentence "Over time, the WG Secretary role's has greatly evolved to include a number of additonal functions and responsibities which are critical to the smooth operation of IETF WGs." is too long. It risks confusing whether the functions and responsibilites are critical or if the WG Secretary roles are critical. I think you meant the former, and that the Secretary can help ensure they're carried out. Finally, some observations that might be useful in the remainder of the discussion of this draft (but not suggestions to change the content of the draft directly): The draft filename risks tools interpreting this as being targeted at a group named 'good'. The discussion of having a person be a secretary for more than one group, or a group having more than one secretary made me go look what the current situation is. To save others the time of looking at each WG page separately, here's the compilation for the active working groups, first organized by people (to see who is a secretary for more than one group), then by group (to see which groups have more than one secretary): {<Person: Samuel Weiler>: [u'sidr'], <Person: Sam Aldrin>: [u'nvo3'], <Person: Tom Haynes>: [u'nfsv4'], <Person: Susan Hares>: [u'trill'], <Person: Sheng Jiang>: [u'dhc'], <Person: S Moonesamy>: [u'hybi'], <Person: Tom Taylor>: [u'avtcore'], <Person: David Sinicrope>: [u'pwe3'], <Person: Jun Bi>: [u'savi'], <Person: Martin Vigoureux>: [u'mpls'], <Person: Daniel King>: [u'l3vpn', u'pce'], <Person: Matt Lepinski>: [u'dane'], <Person: Daniele Ceccarelli>: [u'ccamp'], <Person: Andrew McLachlan>: [u'l2vpn'], <Person: Simon Josefsson>: [u'kitten'], <Person: Wassim Haddad>: [u'lisp'], <Person: David Waltermire>: [u'mile'], <Person: Ulrich Herberg>: [u'manet'], <Person: Damien Saucez>: [u'lisp']} {u'avtcore': [<Person: Tom Taylor>], u'ccamp': [<Person: Daniele Ceccarelli>], u'dane': [<Person: Matt Lepinski>], u'dhc': [<Person: Sheng Jiang>], u'hybi': [<Person: S Moonesamy>], u'kitten': [<Person: Simon Josefsson>], u'l2vpn': [<Person: Andrew McLachlan>], u'l3vpn': [<Person: Daniel King>], u'lisp': [<Person: Damien Saucez>, <Person: Wassim Haddad>], u'manet': [<Person: Ulrich Herberg>], u'mile': [<Person: David Waltermire>], u'mpls': [<Person: Martin Vigoureux>], u'nfsv4': [<Person: Tom Haynes>], u'nvo3': [<Person: Sam Aldrin>], u'pce': [<Person: Daniel King>], u'pwe3': [<Person: David Sinicrope>], u'savi': [<Person: Jun Bi>], u'sidr': [<Person: Samuel Weiler>], u'trill': [<Person: Susan Hares>]} Again, that's just a snapshot of the current moment - it doesn't speak to history. Also, as best I can tell, there's been ONE post in response to this IETF LC on ietf general, and a lot of discussion in other places (78 messages so far on wgchairs - see: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=wgchairs&q=draft-secretaries-good-practices> ). It might be good for the shepherd to bring a summary of those discussions to the IETF list, and perhaps steer the remaining conversation that direction?
- [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-secretaries-go… Robert Sparks