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