Subject: [mpowr] SUMMARY: Give WG chairs more shepherding responsibility?

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:55:09 -0500

Here is the summary of the second sub-discussion under the
topic of the MPOWR WG Proposal:

(2) Does it make sense to give WG chairs more document
shepherding responsibility, and if so what is the best
way to do that?

This discussion was closely related to (and intertwined with)
the discussion on whether or not the IESG can and should take
unilateral action to fix these problems.

Pete Resnick pointed out that he had heard a good deal of
support for the idea of shifting responsibility to WG chairs,
but no consensus to shift authority.  Pete gave the example
that ADs already have the authority to shift most document
shepherding tasks to WG chairs, so a WG isn't necessary to
do that.

Ted Hardie pointed out that the ability for some ADs to
give this responsibility to WG chairs doesn't make this
an IETF-wide policy.  It is still done at the pleasure of
the AD.  BCP changes would be needed to make this an IETF-
wide policy.

James Kempf expressed concern that shifting more responsibility
to WG chairs without more authority will drive people away.
John Loughney agreed.  Pete Resnick clarified that when he said
"authority", he was specifically referring to the authority to
block documents.

Margaret Wasserman pointed out that giving WG chairs more
responsibility for document shepherding is consistent with
the current BCPs, but would require changes to our internal
procedures and tools.  The IESG is forming the PROTO team
to investigate the required changes and make recommendations.

In conclusion:

There seems to be consensus amongst those who have participated
in the discussion that it would be good to give WG chairs more
responsibility for shepherding documents after they are sent to
the IESG for review.

Several people expressed support for the idea of assigning
this type of responsibility to WG chairs (Margaret Wasserman,
James Kempf, Pete Resnick, John Klensin, Dave Crocker).
Several people also pointed out that the IESG (or individual
ADs) can assign this responsibility to WG chairs without
changes to the BCPs.  No one stated that they would object
to moving this type of responsibility to WG chairs.

Again, we've only heard from a small portion of the mailing
list on this issue.  Would others like to comment?

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:30:35 -0700 (MST)

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> There seems to be consensus amongst those who have participated in
> the discussion that it would be good to give WG chairs more
> responsibility for shepherding documents after they are sent to the
> IESG for review.

I have three comments regarding the above statement:

	(a) Before gauging consensus, please define shepherding.
	    Otherwise, people may be agreeing to something they
	    will be surprised by later.

	(b) Could you gauge consensus using the "WG" or
	    "WG representative" wording instead of a "WG chair"
	    wording? I agree that the WG should be more involved
	    in some stages of the review, but I am not ready
	    to assign that responsibility to Chairs.

	(c) We may be discussing a low-level procedure that
	    depends on the changes in IETF review process.
	    It seems to me that this discussion should be
	    postponed, and soon-to-be-forced-into-existence
	    ICAR WG should address the problem we are trying
	    to solve here. ICAR higher-level solutions may
	    remove the need for low-level tuning or may
	    require low-level tuning in a very different
	    environment. Yet another argument against
	    the premature micro-level segmentation of the Big
	    Picture effort!

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:49:21 +0100

Friday  9 January 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote:
[Margaret:]
> > responsibility for shepherding documents after they are sent to the
...
> 	    to assign that responsibility to Chairs.

That would be to gauge consensus on a different topic. I agree with
Margaret's summary, and understand that you don't agree; but consensus
doesn't mean unanimous agreement.

	Henrik

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:53:19 -0500

Hi Alex,

>             will be surprised by later.

The discussion referred to "shepherding documents".  Pete Resnick
also mentioned some specific aspects of document shepherding, such
as getting expert review, doing the write-up, tracking outstanding
issues.  The slides from the plenary presentation that spawned
this forum refer to shepherding documents through the later stages
of the document process (after the current WG -> AD hand-off)
including doing ballot write-ups, tracking AD review and IESG
review comments and getting them resolved, dealing with IANA
and RFC editor issues.  Currently ADs do all of these things,
in addition to doing the actual reviews (both AD review and
IESG review).

>             to assign that responsibility to Chairs.

I would feel uncomfortable saying that we have consensus about
moving this responsibility to "WGs" or "WG representative"
because the discussion we had specifically talked about WG
chairs.  I do acknowledge that you disagree with that formulation,
though.

>             the premature micro-level segmentation of the Big

Maybe.  But, IMO, holding off on all improvements until we
complete an all-singing, all-dancing IETF reorganization would
be a big mistake.

IMO, what we have today mostly works, so we need to tune our
organication and processes through a set of controlled, incremental
changes.  Your opinion may be different, of course.

Margaret

Margaret

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:43:48 +0200 (EET)

> responsibility for shepherding documents after they are sent to

Yes, this makes a lot of sense.  That helps a LOT when addressing the
comments from the IESG review, for example.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:18:08 -0500

Margaret Wasserman:
> There seems to be consensus amongst those who have participated in the
> discussion that it would be good to give WG chairs more responsibility
> for shepherding documents after they are sent to the IESG for review.

I agree.

> 	    to assign that responsibility to Chairs.

Disagree.  I think "WG chair" is the right term.  You cannot have an
entire WG sheperding a document through the final stages.  The chair(s),
in effect, is (are) the representative(s) of the WG.

allman