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

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Wed, 14 January 2004 15:22 UTC

To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
Cc: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>, mpowr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherding responsibility?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0401091417380.62437@measurement-factory.com>
Organization: ICSI Center for Internet Research (ICIR)
Song-of-the-Day: Tom Sawyer
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:08 -0500
Message-Id: <20040114151808.325B477A704@guns.icir.org>
Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

 
Margaret Wasserman:
> 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 agree.

Alex Rousskov:
> 	(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.

Disagree.  I think "WG chair" is the right term.  You cannot have an
entire WG sheperding a document through the final stages.  The chair(s),
in effect, is (are) the representative(s) of the WG.

allman

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

[mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherding … Margaret Wasserman
Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherd… Alex Rousskov
Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherd… Henrik Levkowetz
[mpowr] Request for clarifications on my opinion … Margaret Wasserman
Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherd… Pekka Savola
Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherd… Mark Allman