RE: PROTO Process

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>]

In my case it is a perceived inability to have any impact at this point in the process.

1)	In a number of cases the AD requests changes during the AD evaluation stage and the shepherd does not get informed of that. Perhaps you should do a survey of the number of instances were a "revised version required" is recorded

2)	Many of the issues do not get recorded in the drafts tracker tool, and the shepherds cannot actually update the tracker, so they are unable to use this as a tool to help them in the work.

Perhaps you should do a survey of the number of instances were a "revised version required" is recorded in the drafts tracker, against where tracker provides sufficient information to track down why a new version is needed. In any case, in an open process this information should be recorded and available to all.

regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:14 AM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: wgchairs at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: PROTO Process
> 
> I wanted to expand a little bit on what Russ was saying.
> 
> In my experience, the part of PROTO that is currently working 
> is the write-ups. When it comes to the shepherding of the 
> document through issues raised in last call, directorate, and 
> IESG reviews, the authors and the responsible/discussing ADs 
> seem to be most active in responding, explaining, suggesting 
> text changes, etc. There are notable exceptions
> -- you know who you are -- but in many cases the shepherds 
> are relatively silent. Is this a correct perception of the 
> reality? And if it is, is it a desirable state of affairs or 
> something that should be changed?
> 
> Jari
> 
>