RE: PROTO Process

["Mary Barnes" <mary.barnes at nortel.com>]

If that's the model, then it would be good if it were consistent in the
agendas. There are still cases where the shepherd is specifically called
out in the "Notes" (even when the shepherd is a WG chair).   So, for
gen-art we've always interpreted the lack of indentification of a
shepherd to mean that the AD was the shepherd. 

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:55 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: Bert Wijnen (IETF); Russ Housley; wgchairs at ietf.org
Subject: Re: PROTO Process

Mary,

> 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.
>

The tracker fills in the e-mail address for the WG chairs automatically 
in the e-mail notification field. This works well as long as the 
shepherd is a WG chair. As a result, we typically no longer label agenda

entries with the shepherd's name. It is still recorded in the writeup 
(typically the first entry in the tracker log).

Jari