Re: New document shepherd writeup

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Coincidentally, I'm just writing up a document, so here are some notes on the new template:

* Question 5 - How does the shepherd know if external review is required? Is it at their discretion, or if the charter mentions it, or...?

* Question 10 - If the intent is to have the shepherd call out any of the listed items as a heads-up during review assignment, it'd be good to make that more clear. It's easy to misread this question as asking the shepherd to anticipate those reviews.

* Question 11 - It would be very helpful if there were a link to a clear guide for making this decision.

* Question 12 - Like Bernard, I found the 'interested community' language quite broad. Also, do we no longer need to get an explicit statement about IPR from each author?

* Question 13 - Do we need to positively confirm this with each author? If so, that seems a bit absurd in some circumstances, e.g., when the author has clearly been involved from day one. If not, I'd suggest rewording to remove that implication. 

* Question 14 - The idnits tool raises several issues that do not reflect current practice; e.g., around boilerplate and page lengths. Given that, is it still appropriate to require its use?

* Question 14 - What does 'identify' mean in this context? Is the shepherd supposed to just list the nits found?

* Question 14 - A link to 'Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts' would be helpful.

* Question 14 - <https://github.com/ietf/id-guidelines> is quite long; if it's going to be part of the shepherd process, either a more precise reference or a separate document with just the relevant criteria might be helpful.

* Question 15 - Again, a link to guidance would be helpful.

Cheers,



> On 3 May 2022, at 8:04 pm, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the IESG has recently made some changes to the document shepherd writeup template. The new template is at https://chairs.ietf.org/documents/qa-style-writeup-template (*) and will also be offered by the datatracker when a writeup is started there.
> 
> The main differences are that we're now using a single template for both WG and non-WG documents, which will make maintenance easier. We've also eliminated the option of the "essay-style" free-form writeup, because we found that those often did not cover all the points we'd like to see covered.
> 
> Please feel free to email the IESG with any questions or comments!
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars
> 
> (*) There are currently some formatting issues on the wiki, but the content of the template is accurate.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/