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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>
> Date: November 14, 2006 3:52:20 AM GMT+01:00
> To: Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: COMMENT: draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding
>
> Hi,
>
> (Lars Eggert is the current editor of this document, but I'm not  
> adding
> an explicit Cc: as I assume he sees this on the [e-mail] list...)
>
> My responses inline.
>
> on 2006-11-14 00:57 Ted Hardie said the following:
>> Comment:
>> Nit:
>>
>> This parenthetical expression is not closed:
>>
>> (because it was created by the "PROcess
>>    and TOols" or PROTO [PROTO] team,
>
> Ack.
>
>> The document consistently says that the document
>> shepherd should be a single person (see section 3.
>> especially).  I have personally run PROTO with both
>> working group chairs taking joint responsibility.  I
>> think it works.  Softening the language on that to
>> allow WG chairs to work in double harness would
>> be valuable, in my opinion.
>
> Works for me.
>
>> 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.
>
> (The best would maybe to have the information explicitly only once  
> under
> "Personnel" and have it automatically added to the announcement as  
> part
> of automated processing, if such exists.)
>
>> On IANA actions, the document says:
>>
>>    In summary, the task of shepherding the IANA actions is overlooked
>>    but is as important to coordinate and manage as all the other
>>    document reviews the Document Shepherd has managed.  As with  
>> those,
>>    the Document Shepherd contributes greatly to quality and  
>> timeliness
>>    of the document by effective and responsive shepherding of the  
>> IANA
>>    requests.
>>
>> Does this mean to say "is often overlooked"?
>
> I believe so.  s/is overlooked/is often overlooked/ seems indicated.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> 	Henrik
>
>
>

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

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