Re: WG guidelines DRAFT!
Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Thu, 14 January 1993 16:00 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14296; 14 Jan 93 11:00 EST
Received: from babyoil.ftp.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14280; 14 Jan 93 10:59 EST
Received: by ftp.com id AA29738; Thu, 14 Jan 93 11:00:59 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 11:00:59 -0500
Message-Id: <9301141600.AA29738@ftp.com>
To: Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl
Subject: Re: WG guidelines DRAFT!
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: poised@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Erik, I read the draft. It seems quite good. I think that it says pretty much everything that should be said. I have one general comment, a clear distinction should be made between those elements that can be considered guidelines and those elements that are "rules of procedure". For example, the IESG last call is (I think) a rule that we always follow and if we do not, we get slapped for it. The special anonymous FTP directory to hold a particular meeting's documents is (I would think) a guideline. Also, we have talked about having the senior members of the community (IESG, IAB, Directorates) take a more active role in the operations of the working groups. The goal was to have the Working Group get input from these members of the community up front, rather than at the end of the process. One mechanism that was mentioned was to have a Directorate member assigned to each working group, providing senior technical input. Do we want to formalize this concept? If we do, then this is the document to do it in. Finally, I have a couple of comments on specific text in the document. > The Area Directorate > is formed by the Area Director(s) from senior members of Working Groups > (WG) within the area. I would say that the directorate is formed from senior members of the community represented by the area. > The Working Group may have one or two chair(s) to perform the > administrative functions of the group. It is strongly suggested that > these individuals have Internet mail addresses. I do not really see how a w.g. chair can not have an email address. I think that this should be required. > In case of > submission as an Experimental, Prototype or Standards RFC, the document > will always be reviewed by the IESG. The review can either be done by > the AD and other IESG members or by independent (i.e. not having been > part of the WG in question) reviewers from the Area Directorate. This is unclear. Does this say that a proposed Experimental, Prototype or Standards RFC can be reviewed by the IESG or the independent reviewers from the Area Directorate? In other words, can the IESG delegate its review to the Area Directorate? Or do you mean that the IESG can ask the Area Directorate for its own review (i.e. there is both a Directorate and an IESG review)? > Termination of a WG > ------------------- > After that task is complete, the group will be disbanded. Sometimes working groups might also go "dormant". They remain in existance, but there is little activity. For example, as a document goes through the progression from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard to Full Standard the working group might periodically "wake up" to monitor the implementations to ensure that the "right things" are being done, to fix problems in the standard that show up with implmentation, and to make the necessary reports to the IESG. -- Frank Kastenholz
- WG guidelines DRAFT! Erik Huizer
- Re: WG guidelines DRAFT! Frank Kastenholz
- Re: WG guidelines DRAFT! Fred Baker
- Re: WG guidelines DRAFT! Scott_Brim
- Re: WG guidelines DRAFT! Fred Baker
- Re: WG guidelines DRAFT! Scott_Brim