Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Considering that mainly WG chairs are document shepherds (*), that would 
be a good start.

(*) but this is absolutely not a requirement. See 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/document-shepherds.html

Regards, Benoit
> Perhaps even dedicate a WG-Chairs lunch meeting to it?  I think the
> role has grown
> over the years.
>
> Alia
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 4/03/2013 15:57, John Leslie wrote:
>>> Eggert, Lars <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this
>>>>> situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to
>>>>> want to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the
>>>>> way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it.
>>>> what is "the fix"?
>>>      There is an obvious place to look for ideas: the directorates. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html
>> That would help if the AD job would not be a full time job. Sure.
>> And I see some suggestions in this email thread to rely more on the
>> directorates. That makes sense (but reviews vary greatly, however)
>> One track not mentioned in this thread is the document shepherd.
>> The document shepherd job, when done according to RFC 4858 (see specifically
>> section 3.2 and 3.3) would save a huge amount of time to the AD.
>> Recently, for a single draft, I spent hoouuurrrssss trying to track all the
>> open issues from the directorates and the IESG, and chasing the authors. On
>> top of taking some time, I had to be become expert for every single aspect
>> of the specification to evaluate whether the answer was right... while the
>> document shepherd has already the expertise.
>> We should probably stress (again) the importance of document shepherd
>> function...
>>
>> Regards, Benoit
>>
>>
>