Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends
John C Klensin wrote:
> This is not an easy problem.
Then let's do something easy first, add a section about
"shepherds and individual sheep" in chapter 8 of TAObis.
It is hard to find this info in Brian's marauder's map.
Some points: Anybody can recommend an individual draft
for publication on standards track (RFC 2026 6.1.1).
By one of those rules that are no policy and hidden in
an ex-ION archive that recommendation has to include a
proposed write-up (roughly the same as for WG drafts),
and it is sent to the ADs of the corresponding area(s),
with a copy to iesg@, because it actually constitutes
a PubReq. Informing the authors helps, the initiative
is doomed without cooperation from the author(s).
After that the ADs can toss a coin who if anybody wants
to "sponsor" the draft, and appoint a shepherd for some
clerical tasks (watching the draft tracker, figure out
where the "token" is when it is MIA, andFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org Thu Jun 26 19:08:19 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-web-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-web-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FB53A698F;
Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B353A698F
for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.388, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id xITR7YM2tgiK for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25EEB3A6846
for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1KC3Nq-00071j-Ep
for ietf at ietf.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:08:18 +0000
Received: from hmbg-d9b88e3a.pool.mediaways.net ([217.184.142.58])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <ietf at ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:08:18 +0000
Received: from nobody by hmbg-d9b88e3a.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim
0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <ietf at ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:08:18 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf at ietf.org
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:09:52 +0200
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <g41i2a$cic$1 at ger.gmane.org>
References: <20080624203548.D3A8D3A67FD at core3.amsl.com><48622DEB.7060403 at piuha.net> <486267E0.8080704 at qualcomm.com><48628ED6.1000800 at piuha.net><4862BB84.4070401 at gmail.com> <486380C4.6000607 at qualcomm.com><48642503.2000805 at gmail.com>
<CE24B45F0E7AC31704D4FED5 at p3.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: usenet at ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hmbg-d9b88e3a.pool.mediaways.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com>
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
John C Klensin wrote:
> This is not an easy problem.
Then let's do something easy first, add a section about
"shepherds and individual sheep" in chapter 8 of TAObis.
It is hard to find this info in Brian's marauder's map.
Some points: Anybody can recommend an individual draft
for publication on standards track (RFC 2026 6.1.1).
By one of those rules that are no policy and hidden in
an ex-ION archive that recommendation has to include a
proposed write-up (roughly the same as for WG drafts),
and it is sent to the ADs of the corresponding area(s),
with a copy to iesg@, because it actually constitutes
a PubReq. Informing the authors helps, the initiative
is doomed without cooperation from the author(s).
After that the ADs can toss a coin who if anybody wants
to "sponsor" the draft, and appoint a shepherd for some
clerical tasks (watching the draft tracker, figure out
where the "token" is when it is tickle author,
sponsor, or "discussing" ADs as needed).
The usual "those who propose" might apply, but ADs are
free to do this "shepherding" without help. A proposed
write-up covers checked ABNF, checked nits, all required
reviews ready, etc., down to the "1F" question.
But unlike WG shepherds, who are typically co-Chairs, an
individual shepherd does not *decide* about consensus or
not, like an author does not *decide* this. Only Chairs
and ADs are entitled to decide this, it's an appealable
decision. Authors, editors, and shepherds are immune.
Frank
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
MIA, and tickle author,
sponsor, or "discussing" ADs as needed).
The usual "those who propose" might apply, but ADs are
free to do this "shepherding" without help. A proposed
write-up covers checked ABNF, checked nits, all required
reviews ready, etc., down to the "1F" question.
But unlike WG shepherds, who are typically co-Chairs, an
individual shepherd does not *decide* about consensus or
not, like an author does not *decide* this. Only Chairs
and ADs are entitled to decide this, it's an appealable
decision. Authors, editors, and shepherds are immune.
Frank
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions
of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
