[proto-team] Fwd: COMMENT: draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
> Date: November 14, 2006 5:12:07 AM GMT+01:00
> To: Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: COMMENT: draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding
>
> At 3:52 AM +0100 11/14/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>
>>> Section 3.1 adds this section to the common write-up:
>>>
>>> Personnel
>>>              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who  
>>> is the
>>>              Responsible Area Director?
>>>
>>> above that, the document says:
>>>
>>>  A final sentence of the Document Announcement Write-Up, simply  
>>> placed
>>>    as a line at the end of the "Document Quality" section, can  
>>> state the
>>>    names of the Document Shepherd and the Responsible Area Director,
>>>    because the announcement will not otherwise acknowledge them.   
>>> The
>>>    Document Shepherd SHOULD add this information and the Responsible
>>>    Area Director SHOULD add it if it is not already there.
>>>
>>> That seems to indicate that the same information goes in the  
>>> Document quality
>>> section, rather than in its own heading.  Resolving that seems to  
>>> me useful.
>>
>> Umm.  I'm not sure if you propose to remove the duplication, or if  
>> you
>> seek a clearer statement of the fact that if the optional  
>> acknowledgement
>> is added, it is indeed duplicating the previous mandatory personnel
>> information?  I guess either would be fine with me.
>
> I guess my real motive here is to find out whether we are asking
> the secretariat to add a Personnel section, or asking the ADs to
> include the information in the Document quality section.  I am
> fine either way.  I do think it would be easier to set out which
> is expected.  If folks want to go with a mandatory Personnel,
> as you suggest below, in other words, that's fine by me.
>
>
>>
>>> In Section 6, the document says:
>>>
>>> 1.  Cases, where the Document Shepherd is the primary author or
>>>        editor of a large percentage of the documents produced by the
>>>        working group.
>>> 2.  Cases, where the Responsible Area Director expects communication
>>>        difficulties with the Document Shepherd (either due to
>>>        experience, strong views stated by the Document Shepherd, or
>>>        other issues).
>>>
>>>    3.  Cases, where the working group itself is either very old,  
>>> losing
>>>        energy, or winding down, i.e., cases, where it would not be
>>>        productive to initiate new processes or procedures.
>>>
>>> The syntax of these is hard to parse. I think the last of them  
>>> applies
>>> only to working groups that pre-date PROTO (it would not introduce
>>> a new procedure to tired WGs that post-date PROTO).  As something
>>> that is either already dated or soon will be, should it be struck?
>>
>> Makes sense, yes.
>>
>>> Frankly, I would recommend cutting that whole section, and replacing
>>> it with "When the responsible area director or proposed PROTO  
>>> shepherd
>>> feel that the process is not appropriate, the responsible area  
>>> director
>>> may server as document shepherd, as she or he does for non-WG
>>> documents."
>>
>> I think this would be ok, but note that while the enumerated cases  
>> are
>> probably very real to an AD, this may not be the case for a newly
>> appointed chair, and it is easier to read a document which provides a
>> clear connection to real cases, rather than only the abstract  
>> principles
>> which would cover them.  I think there is some merit in keeping  
>> Section
>> 6 except for case 3, and try to re-word cases 1 and 2 to be more
>> easily parsed.
>>
>> I don't feel strongly about this though, so if the other authors  
>> would
>> like to adjust the text according to the proposal, I'm ok with that.
>>
>
> I also did not feel strongly about it; none of my comments is meant
> to be blocking.  If you prefer to drop 3 and reword 1 &2, that's fine
> by me.  Doing nothing is also okay, if the authors feel it is valuable
> to retain even section 3.
> 			
> Thanks for your quick response,
> 				regards,
> 					Ted
>

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team