Re: [irsg] New document shepherd writeup

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Carsten says...
> Polling, yes, stalling until their confirmation, no.

Michael R says...
> Isn't the reason to subject everyone to repeated instances of NoteWell
> specifically so that they will know they have to declare IPR?
> (I'm not even sure I understand why we ask authors again, given that)

And, indeed, some tales from my time as an AD:
It might surprise many of you that we have some crusty people in the
IETF, those who are prone to get grumpy about things they think are
stupid.  I know that's far fetched, but bear with me here.

It, of course, won't surprise any of you that one of those "things
they think are stupid" is a requirement from the chairs to get a
direct answer to the "Are you in compliance with BCP 79?" question
before their document can proceed.  "I've read the Note Well 17,000
times," they will say.  "I've read the boilerplate in ever draft I've
posted," they will say.  "I've asserted that compliance more times
than I can count, and it's insulting to continue asking me... and to
make it a condition of progress," they will say.  Um.  Wrong tense:
not "they will say," but they did say."

At that time -- and I can't speak for the current IESG -- we reached
an understanding that it's the chairs' judgment whether the question
needs an explicit answer or whether the chairs know the authors well
enough to confidently answer the question from the chairs' own
knowledge.  As a chair, I've used that mechanism often... as with the
two quoted above: I will never ask Carsten or Michael that question
explicitly -- not because they're grumpy about it (they are not;
they're quite polite in this regard), but because I just know they
know the rules and are people of integrity.

If my AD tells me to handle it differently, I will consider that (and
will have the conversation with the AD), but there you go.

Barry