Subject: Draft submitted, change policy

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:25:50 -0800

I've submitted draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07.txt for processing.

At this point, I intend to switch to a fairly strict system for processing
changes, based on the previous message from Harald on using issue
tracking.  Many of the remaining issues are controversial and I usually
have strong opinions on most of the controversies, and I want to keep a
clear line between that and the editing of the draft.  Here's my plan (and
please note in advance that I've not done this before and am likely to
make mistakes in following this plan; please feel free to call me on them
and if I change this plan, I'll let the WG know):

 * Any change which I judge to impact the protocol described by the
   document (as opposed to just the wording used to describe the
   protocol), that I believe is controversial, or that someone else
   believes is controversial I want to track as an issue.  That means I'm
   going to not apply substantive or controversial changes without an
   issue to track the resolution.  I intend to defer to the working group
   chairs on resolution of issues.  When I offer my opinion on a change,
   it will *always* be as an individual, not as editor, unless I
   explicitly say otherwise.

 * I will not make *any* change beyond housekeeping changes (updating the
   date, changing the I-D filename, that sort of thing) without mention on
   the mailing list.  I expect that mention will normally be in the form
   of someone suggesting better wording.  I'll try to follow up and say
   when such suggestions have been applied.

 * If I see a wording change that I believe is uncontroversial (grammar
   fixes or sentence order, that sort of thing, nothing that changes the
   substance of the document), I'll try to make note of it on the mailing
   list using a Subject header prefixed with "Minor Change" rather than
   "ISSUE".  Feel free to use this convention to note similar wording
   fixes that you feel can just be applied without further discussion.

I'm going to see if I can set up automated commit notification software so
that every change I make to the draft will be automatically sent to the
mailing list in diff form.  If this becomes annoying, let me know and I
can turn it off.  My feeling from previous working group discussions is
that this sort of transparency would be welcome, and I already have most
of a system in place for automating it so it's no extra effort for me.

My intention (which may not survive contact with reality) is to respond to
discussions as I have free time but to only apply changes resulting from
resolved issues (and probably also any accumulated minor changes) in batch
on Sundays.  This is a measure designed to help me control my time
committments to various volunteer projects.

It's not yet clear to me whether I'll have enough time to do a good job at
this; if not, with working group approval, I'll ask Ken to help or take
over.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>