Re: WG Document Shepherd Write-Up Template: Call for review (Ends 22/05/2026)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > These questions are tending to things that only chairs can answer:

    > * “Is there good consensus?” may be something that an observer can
    > sometimes answer, but when I’m doing a shepherd write-up I feel uneasy
    > about judging consensus (even the level of consensus) in a WG I don’t
    > chair. It is the chairs’ job to call consensus and what magic they use
    > to achieve that is their business. How should I know? It might look
    > like a 50-50 call, but actually the chairs know about the technology
    > and the people.

I hear you.

1. This is why shepherds need to chosen sooner, so that they can see the
   process better.

2. Reviewing the mail archives is doable, and I find it takes ~10min to find
   the relevant threads, and another 10min to decide how things went.
   Failing that, the sherpherd should *ASK* the chair ;-)

   Part of what we are doing here is to train people to do chair-like things
   so that they will be more ready to become a chair...

    > * “Is this document in scope for the WG?” is similarly
    > something the chairs can answer, but absent a specific milestone, it is
    > something that an observer can only give an opinion about.

I agree that this question is not a good addition.

    > So I want to say to the IESG: If you do not trust your chairs on these
    > matters, please replace them or train them.

+1.  _Trust them or replace them_

    > Because, you know, if you have trained them and you still don’t trust
    > them, then asking the questions is not going to get you any closer to
    > knowing the answer.

+5