Re: [I18ndir] Getting restarted and triage

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

[Copying the ADs, as their input is also necessary.]

Before getting to your direct question, a followup on the "restart and 
triage" bit: I only got 2 messages from folks who wanted to do triage, 
and then promptly went on vacation (with a longer-than-normal vacation 
interrupt latency on the backend), so I haven't gotten a chance to 
individually harass people who said some time ago that they would help 
out. That harassment will start today. So hopefully we'll get on track 
to do triage and regular reviews quickly.

But, as for your direct question:

On 13 Jun 2019, at 20:38, John C Klensin wrote:

> That brings me to a key question.  Noting that the main reason
> for proposing the BOF that led to this directorate was to try to
> get work on core I18N, and especially IDNA, issues under
> control, my preference would be that the directorate take a look
> at the drafts mentioned above (and probably Asmus's work on
> troublesome characters, etc.) and make a recommendation to the
> ADs about how to handle them.   An alternative would be for us
> to introduce the drafts on the IDNAbis WG mailing list and then
> pass them directly to the ADs with a request for AD sponsorship
> and, if needed, a short-term restart of that WG, which would get
> them to the directorate that way.   There is a Plan C, but I'm
> quite confident that almost no one would like it.
>
> So, Glorious Leaders and other directorate participants, how
> would you like to proceed?

So, first let's get together the full list of "core" documents needing 
review in this group. From your message, I glean:

draft-klensin-idna-unicode-review
draft-klensin-idna-architecture (to be published)
draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis (expired)
draft-freytag-troublesome-characters-02 (expired)

Did I miss anything?

(I'm of course leaving aside draft-faltstrom-unicode12, which is on 
Alexey's plate.)

Do you think all of these need to be reviewed in parallel, or can we 
subdivide the task? My inclination is to get a couple of sets of 
eyeballs on each document and then discuss the reviews on the list; I 
don't think we need to have a free-for-all on all of the documents.

(On that, and to reply to some of the other comments: Dealing with these 
documents is **not at all** like a WG: In a WG, documents are 
collectively developed and documented by the doc editor, and by the time 
a document is done, we have a nice history, whether it's on the mailing 
list, in github, or whatever, of how decisions were made and why we have 
consensus. This is very different: We have documents prepared by 
individual experts and are trying to retrospectively review them, 
looking for errors or editorial flubs to make sure the document is ready 
to go. We want to get additional eyeballs on the documents, but this is 
*not* a collective effort to create these documents. That's OK, but 
that's also why it's so hard to get focus. The purpose of the 
directorate IMO is to get that focus.)

I'm inclined to hear what the ADs want out of this process as well. For 
documents like this, my presumption is that you want to hear a hum from 
the directorate that you're safe to AD sponsor the document. Is that 
right?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best