Re: [kitten] Proposal for tracking document reviews and skipping WGLC

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Just for the record: I think this is a fine thing to try
for a while, and thanks to the chairs for being willing.
I hope the WG are also willing to give it a shot as I figure
we need to make IETF stuff easier for WGs like kitten that
maintain important protocols through what will sometimes
be relatively "low energy" periods.

S.

On 21/06/16 04:58, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> At our IETF 95 session, Stephen pointed out that the chairs do not
> necessarily need to run a WGLC in order to make an assessment that there
> is working group consensus for any given document; the WGLC procedure is a
> customary way to do so but is not enshrined as a formal procedure.  Given
> the [not-so-]recent discussion about document adoption, document backlog,
> potentially abandoning old documents, and prioritizing upcoming work, it
> seems reasonable to revisit our processes for finishing documents.  In
> particular, with our WGLCs sometimes being extended to get enough comments
> and not usually bringing in input from a large body of participants, as
> well as the behind-the-scenes cajoling that the chairs have beein doing to
> solicit document reviews, it is attractive to consider a way to be able to
> move documents forward without needing a WGLC.  It seems that some of the
> difficulty with the traditional WGLC process stems from many WG
> participants not having regular (weekly or more frequent) time in which to
> contribute, so the WGLC could stall until participants' availabilities
> line up.
> 
> As an attempt to remedy the difficulty of coordinating everyone's
> schedule, we propose to create a wiki page (or pages) where each document
> can have a table of who has reviewed what version(s) of that document,
> with a link to the review.  The actual mechanics of doing a review would
> not necessarily change; mail still needs to go to the list with comments
> and discussion, but this wiki page would help us (authors, chairs, and
> participants) to track which documents are getting attention and which
> might be ready to move on. [0] Once the chairs think that a given document
> has received sufficient review, we can send a message to the list noting
> our intention to move it forward, and start on the shepherd writeup.  In
> some sense this would still serve as a WGLC, in that it would be the "last
> call" for objections from the WG, but we would not have to block for a
> period of time waiting for comments even if the document was in fact
> ready; the comments would already be in, and the shepherd writeup could
> proceed in parallel with asking if there are objections.
> 
> If this proposal moves forward, there is a question of where to host the
> wiki page: two choices that came up so far are a github wiki or an
> IETF-hosted trac wiki, but we are not tied to those two options.  My
> understanding is that either one would require an account tied to that
> provider in order to edit (to avoid wiki spam), so there would be some
> barrier to entry in either case.  However, perhaps more people already
> have github accounts than IETF trac accounts, which lends some preference
> to github; indeed, other WGs are using github for document editing and
> issue tracking already.  Regardless of where the wiki is hosted, a wiki
> account would not be needed in order to participate in document review;
> comments can always be sent to the mailing list and the chairs are able to
> edit the wiki page on behalf of others.
> 
> Does this proposal seem reasonable?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
> for the kitten chairs
> 
> 
> [0] This also serves as a way for an author to build good will by
> reviewing other peoples' documents on the principle of "I reviewed yours;
> please review mine".
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kitten mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
>