RE: PROTO Process

[Ross Callon <rcallon at juniper.net>]

As an AD, I agree that the PROTO write-ups have been quite useful, for
example when filling out the ballot, during AD review of the document,
as well as during IESG discussions. 

I see quite a few cases where WG chairs are helpful and participate in
the discussions helping to resolve issues (along with the authors,
discussing ADs, and shepherding ADs). In some cases the WG chairs have
been helpful when the authors have been hard to get to pay attention to
the document (eg, in a few cases finding an alternate editor to finish
the work when the original author had retired or otherwise couldn't get
to it).  

I can't recall cases where the document shepherd has been helpful where
the shepherd was neither author nor WG chair. I can't say whether this
was because I haven't noticed any cases where the PROTO shepherd was
anyone other than a WG chair, or because we forgot to CC the PROTO
shepherd on the emails, or for some other reason. 

Ross 

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Jari Arkko
Sent: 12 May 2009 06:14
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