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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> Date: November 14, 2006 8:39:42 AM GMT+01:00
> To: Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], Henrik Levkowetz  
> <[e-mail]>om>, [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: COMMENT: draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding
>
> Since there's already a pretty complex RFC Editor note,
> I may end up asking for one more respin of the draft,
> even if there are no Discusses. All Ted's points are worthy
> of attention.
>
>     Brian
>
> Ted Hardie wrote:
>> 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