[mpowr] Request for clarifications on my opinion of consensus

Hi Alex,

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

The discussion referred to "shepherding documents".  Pete Resnick
also mentioned some specific aspects of document shepherding, such
as getting expert review, doing the write-up, tracking outstanding
issues.  The slides from the plenary presentation that spawned
this forum refer to shepherding documents through the later stages
of the document process (after the current WG -> AD hand-off)
including doing ballot write-ups, tracking AD review and IESG
review comments and getting them resolved, dealing with IANA
and RFC editor issues.  Currently ADs do all of these things,
in addition to doing the actual reviews (both AD review and
IESG review).

>         (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.

I would feel uncomfortable saying that we have consensus about
moving this responsibility to "WGs" or "WG representative"
because the discussion we had specifically talked about WG
chairs.  I do acknowledge that you disagree with that formulation,
though.

>         (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!

Maybe.  But, IMO, holding off on all improvements until we
complete an all-singing, all-dancing IETF reorganization would
be a big mistake.

IMO, what we have today mostly works, so we need to tune our
organication and processes through a set of controlled, incremental
changes.  Your opinion may be different, of course.

Margaret

Margaret

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