|
I
agree with Bert and I follow a very similar model as shepherd. The gap I
see in the process is that the actual shepherd doesn't typically appear on the
IESG telechat agendas - i.e., chairs typically do the PROTO write-up and then
for my WG, the AD generally takes the lead from there, so there is definitely
the potential for the shepherds to get left out of the loop. And, this lack
of identification of the shepherd applies to the majority of the documents on
the IESG agendas. However, most folks are conscientious enough
to copy WG chairs, who should provide the info to the Shepherd, if it's
someone other than the chairs.
I do
ping the ADs as necessary to determine the status. As Keith suggests,
there can be a loss of information once a doc leaves a WG and often the only way
to get the information is to ping the AD. I would certainly be
willing to remain more actively involved if necessary and like Bert do get
involved when necessary. In particular, I consistently ping authors to respond,
making suggestions and providing guidance as appropriate - e.g.,
doc needs to come back to WG for re-reveiw, etc. In my view, this
model is quite effective as it helps editors/authors that may not be as familiar
with the process have a better understanding of how their draft becomes an RFC,
it removes an unnecessary interaction/layer and is more transparent.
Also, as a document editor, I see no problems with the shepherd being
involved on an "as needed" basis in resolving IESG concerns. It might
be useful to query document editors (community in general) to see how this model
works for them and whether they feel the WG chair and/or shepherd does enough in
helping progress the documents.
Mary.
From: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF) Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:36 AM To: Jari Arkko; Russ Housley Cc: wgchairs at ietf.org Subject: Re: PROTO Process So Jari, do you see it a failure if authors/editors interact
with the ADs and the
people who raise issues concerns? As far as I am concerned,
when that
happens in a timely fashion, then I am happy when
shepherding.
If it does not happen quick enough, then I try to stimulate
interaction.
When shepherding, I also keep an eye on the discussion to try
and
determine if the resulting edits are changing what the WG had
consensus
on, and in that case I would steer that discussion to the WG
to make
sure that the WG is in agreement.
Don't overload the shepherd with things that seem to be
working.
Bert
|