Re: [proto-team] Re: Revision of shepherding draft for the deadline

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:00:21AM +0100, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mar 6, 2006, at 15:53, David Meyer wrote:
> >        I've read it over a few times and I like it. Others?
> 
> read it and agree, it's in good shape overall. I only have some minor  
> comments:
> 
> (1) If RFC2119 language is applicable to a process document (and I'm  
> not sure that it is), some parts of the document could use some  
> RFC2119-ization. Example in Section 3.1: change "it is the task of  
> the Shepherding WG Chair to do a document write-up" to "the  
> Shepherding WG Chair MUST do a document write-up".

	Use of 2119 language in non-protocol specs continues to
	be controversial, since there's no real interoperation
	going on here. We've bashed this around in the context of
	OPS area documents for many years now. OTOH, from 2119, 
	
	  1. MUST   This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or
	            "SHALL", mean that the definition is an
		    absolute requirement of the specification. 

	seems consistent with what you want to convey.

> (2) The intro briefly notes that chairs can appoint secretaries as  
> shepherds, but the process description in Section 3 never picks this  
> up. A brief paragraph on what steps this involves may be good. We may  
> also want to change terminology from "Shepherding WG Chair" to simply  
> "Shepherd" or something similar for that reason.

	Yep.


	Good comments. 

	Dave