[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 12:57:44 AM GMT+01:00
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: COMMENT: draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding
>
> Comment:
> Nit:
>
> This parenthetical expression is not closed:
>
> (because it was created by the "PROcess
>    and TOols" or PROTO [PROTO] team,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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"?
>
> 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?
>
> 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."
>
>

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

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