Re: PROTO Process

[Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud at ogud.com>]

At 03:12 12/05/2009, Russ Housley wrote:
> During the IESG Retreat, they was a discussion of the effectiveness 
> of the PROTO process.  Our view is that the document write-up is the 
> only part of the envisioned process that is really providing 
> benefit.  We are seeking your input on the situation.  Can the 
> community get the envisioned benefits?  What changes are necessary to get them?
>
> On behalf of the IESG,
>   Russ Housley

Well in my experience is that the general IETF community has no idea
what the role of the Doc Shep. is.
The ID-tracer hides who the shepherd is, I would suggest that his/her name
be listed on the top just like the AD name.


Based on what we have seen up to now I think we can put together a simple
guide to be doc. shepherd:
        do the WG Summary write up
        agree on a role with editors
                who is in charge of answering questions
                        document contents
                        wg process/consensus
                        trouble makers
                who suggests modified text
                who is in charge of deciding changes

        Reach an understanding on what is expected by AD
                how often to nag
                ask if AD needs help or wait for instructions

        Subscribe to atom feed for draft.

        After LC double check all public comments have been answered
        Notify AD when all comments have been addressed

To help everyone it would be nice if the main page for the draft contained
a summary of the voting something like:
        Yes=2, NoObj=8, Dis=1, Abstain=1, Missing=1

The following idea may not fly but what the heck:

Create a short form for document shepherd to fill out to summarize the last
call similar to the working group summary.

        Q1: Have all public comments been addressed

        Q1.5: If NO List all unresolved comments (links to threads)

        Q1.7: Suggest a way forward

        Q2: What changes are needed in document before IESG processes
            the document?

        Q2.1: When will new version be available ?

        Q3: Any other information that might be helpful for IESG in reviewing
            the document

After this form is submitted the AD can do his write up.

In my experience the worst thing to happen is to discover the day before a
document is to be processed by the IESG that one important public comment
was not addressed and Russ puts a Discuss on the document.

        Olafur