Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> (IETF Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBAA21E8159 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:28:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.487
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.888, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JSuvarah0Ckj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:28:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65F921E8149 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:28:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.154.124]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA8HSXZX024992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:28:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1383931733; bh=R7svR+JTLoR61FmfPl+CtxpisZ2ACKaIbT1mBvD8gU0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=aeEtk3+2ZWQAedv5L8/DDNxt4JK2uM5zvSTZyhk17p1BuFY7IAKUWnUDYW+ccjMWe AuF0zm243uoThq48tI8R7EjGG5Br0qd6k1mCNCslhVBpBDRQiJuXaqSjSxQg9FFvTS 8CE4bKJxMUUz/H+oeUEGptd5TfAuqyHTtzM4Y0xA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1383931733; i=@elandsys.com; bh=R7svR+JTLoR61FmfPl+CtxpisZ2ACKaIbT1mBvD8gU0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=zQL5zyjjQJVlMAvsbqR9qhxOzUfFtG3nnG65IkRjpJZ0GepSrlVZCNoLiTV45KIhE Oj3wmfqF2497s+LUiYUXEXLj/wO3SQCKsz5H+gIK9LT5V1EUTAwDmhksmrBuzcCqBV yWzB4B6S8gbNuu0qEjL1puY/bHTqqMKq0SJNO9Kk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131108084748.0b5ab4d0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:26:34 -0800
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis-03.txt> (IETF Guidelines for Conduct) to Best Current Practice
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwZg9QTJ80Odhz0q_Vf6OnzrKFQYF=N9ckpATryo18bLyg@mail.g mail.com>
References: <20131103150309.1554.26103.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALo9H1aExXmYfOgjj3kofAZ3VOCR_ysZT8qOjQZqr7SP-GNQZA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131106153355.0dee0ae0@elandnews.com> <CALo9H1YmsjxU8Srdcnn--XRakrKsw_20+LQ=PrL5_9RW9=xzJw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131106165626.0dd3f6e0@elandnews.com> <CAL0qLwZg9QTJ80Odhz0q_Vf6OnzrKFQYF=N9ckpATryo18bLyg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:28:57 -0000

Hi Murray,
At 08:31 08-11-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>The document shepherd has the same responsibility as the editor, 
>which is to confirm that the document reflects consensus of the 
>community on all points (plus the IESG followup stuff).  Authority 
>(such as it is) to decide what's in and what's out lies with the
>  community.  The worst that could happen is that the author and 
> shepherd disagree about what has consensus, and at maximum the 
> shepherd could note the discrepancy in the document's writeup and 
> let the IESG determine consensus on the disputed point.

The document editor documents the points which has gained 
agreement.  If there is disagreement or it is not clear what has 
gained agreement the document shepherd can provide advice.  It's 
unlikely that I would disagree with the document shepherd.  The 
sponsoring Area Director can step in to provide guidance.  The IESG 
gets to make the determination of consensus.

>Who is the shepherd for this one?  The tracker shows none assigned.

Ines Robles is the document shepherd.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy