Re: [I18ndir] Getting restarted and triage

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> 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?

I suppose that's one way to look at it, and it's certainly something
we need to know.  More broadly, though, it's that the content is
"right" and sensible, to the extent that something in this space can
be objectively called "right", and that it contributes to moving the
I18N vehicle in the right direction.  Which also means some sort of
assessment about how it ties in with other documents in the vehicle --
the ones that came before, and the others that are being considered
now.

For that last, it means that in addition to separate reviews of each
it would be nice to have someone look over all of them with that in
mind.  Because Alexey and I are clueful about I18N, we can certainly
handle that part this time.  In general and in future, where we're
looking at a set of ART Directors none of whom are versed in I18N, it
will be more important for the Directorate to take a holistic view.

Barry

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:13 PM Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> [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