Re: Tricky cross-area topics

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Michael, you seem to be mixing several things.
Using the shepherding job to help train folks is something I have seen 
discussed in several places, anbd tried to do.
Appointing shepherds early is practiced by some working groups and not 
others.

But in no case that I know of is the shepherd's job to report whether 
the WG process worked well.  the shepherd report does include whether 
the consensus was rough, clear, ...  But that is NOT a report on whether 
the process worked well.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/6/2019 10:23 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      >> The trend is supposed to now be that shepherds are assigned when the
>      >> document
>      >>     is adopted.  That is so that they can watch to how the consensus is
>      >> formed.
>   
>      > I have never heard, nor been told that.
> 
> It could be that I've made this up, or that it's just something I've been
> doing.  But, I don't think that I'm alone in this delusion.  I know that it's
> not widespread.  Nor is the practice of trying to have people who are not the
> WG chair be shepherds.
> 
> A reason I give for doing this is because it trains people up a bit to be
> able to become WG chairs.  And it gives the WG chairs (and AD) a bit like an
> idea if the person would make a good chair.... and lord needs we need more WG
> chairs (and more diverse of them), because... only WG chairs can become ADs.
> [an unwritten rule enforced by IAB]
> 
>      > I have also heard and been told that the WG chairs, perhaps with
>      > observation by the AD at a meeting, decide consensus.
> 
> Yes, WG chairs should be trying to judge consensus at meetings, and on
> mailing lists.  The shepherd's job is to observe and report whether this
> process worked well or not.
>   
>      > Where did you get this?  Is it written down in any guidance for WG
>      > chairs?
> 
> Sorry, I don't know.  I could wander around the WG chair pages and look again.
>