[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG Chairs Training
Hi Spencer,
At 09:31 PM 3/17/2003 -0800, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
It's probably worth mentioning that I see many working groups
that just kind of absorb individual drafts as working group
drafts, without the kind of major decision point, and discussion
of editor rights and responsibilities, that Margaret has in the
training material, and that Aaron is providing input on below.
And this unstudied absorbing is Not A Feature...
I agree.
This, though, is exactly the type of issue that hits on the
question I raised a couple of messages ago -- to what extent
do we want to encourage consistent WG-internal processes?
And, what does it make sense to leave up to the personal
style and choices of the WG chair?
p.s. a process nit, not a presentation nit - we're still
confused about whether draft-ietf-wgname draft names matter or
not. Steve Coya has been pointing out that there's no link
between a draft name and whether it's REALLY a working group
draft or not, in the working group chair training for multiple
years, but I'm hearing more reports of IESG and IAB members
basing the decision to look closely at a draft on the name, and
not on whether it's actually a working group draft or not.
We should be a lot clearer on whether we expect all working
group drafts to be explicitly named to reflect this or not.
IMHO, of course.
The current materials could use some improvement in this area.
They are very much oriented on explaining the tools that
the secretariat uses (databases, etc.), but the WG chairs
don't actually have access to those tools. Instead, we
interface with people and mail aliases...
Just because the tools _can_ support exceptions to the
usualy conventions doesn't mean that we need to allow
exceptions. Any convention that is as consistently
followed as the file naming convention starts to take
on the force of law for the people involved. Exceptions
become quite confusing.
As I said in the meeting, if you submit a document with a
draft-ietf-foo name, Natalia will assume that it is being
submitted as a WG item for the "foo" WG and will seek chair
permission for its publication as a WG work item.
So, I'd actually support removing the materials that
describe the internals of the secretariat tools, and
replacing them with slides that describe the filenaming
conventions that are currently used throughout the
IETF.
Margaret