Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherding responsibility?

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> There seems to be consensus amongst those who have participated in
> the discussion that it would be good to give WG chairs more
> responsibility for shepherding documents after they are sent to the
> IESG for review.

I have three comments regarding the above statement:

	(a) Before gauging consensus, please define shepherding.
	    Otherwise, people may be agreeing to something they
	    will be surprised by later.

	(b) Could you gauge consensus using the "WG" or
	    "WG representative" wording instead of a "WG chair"
	    wording? I agree that the WG should be more involved
	    in some stages of the review, but I am not ready
	    to assign that responsibility to Chairs.

	(c) We may be discussing a low-level procedure that
	    depends on the changes in IETF review process.
	    It seems to me that this discussion should be
	    postponed, and soon-to-be-forced-into-existence
	    ICAR WG should address the problem we are trying
	    to solve here. ICAR higher-level solutions may
	    remove the need for low-level tuning or may
	    require low-level tuning in a very different
	    environment. Yet another argument against
	    the premature micro-level segmentation of the Big
	    Picture effort!

Thanks,

Alex.

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr