Comments on draft-wasserman-wg-process

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Scanning documents the night before the IETF starts.... it is less bad than 
scanning them in the meeting....

In general, I like this document. It has the very good property that what 
it says seems obvious in retrospect, yet I couldn't have expressed it 
clearly before reading the document.

I found some things to comment on, as I always do.

Section 2.1 - Initial submission: there's a "not" missing - it says "does 
fit within the charter", and then discusses how to make it fit......

I think the exit criteria should also involve some minimum quality of the 
document, and some conviction on the part of the WG chair (and the WG, when 
presented there) that the proposed approach is feasible. This should also 
be done in later stages, of course - but even in the initial stage, "won't 
work" should be a valid reason to reject a submission.

In sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 (Author refinemenet and WG acceptance), the 
document may also be "owned" by a wg-independent design team; I don't think 
such a design team can "own" a document once it's been handed over to a 
WG-appointed editor, but I think the WG may choose to establish its own 
(WG-appointed) design team to assist the editor in clarifying choices and 
redesigns requested by the WG.

That's what I found on a quick reading....

                         Harald