RE: WG Chairs Training

["Rik Drummond" <rvd2@drummondgroup.com>]

This is why only the wg lead should be allowed to submit drafts to the
ieft under their responsibility. If this happen the control points are
in place to manage this issue.... Best regards, rik
Chair ietf ediint wg

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wgchairs@ietf.org [mailto:owner-wgchairs@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of pregen@egenconsulting.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:27 AM
To: Spencer Dawkins
Cc: Aaron Falk; Margaret Wasserman; owner-wgchairs@ietf.org;
wgchairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Chairs Training




Regarding the naming of drafts - there is also the problem of someone
putting a working group name in the title and on the draft itself, yet
there has been no discussion with the WG on either the list or
otherwise. People sometimes assume that since this is "about" a topic
that a WG is managing then it is ok to say the draft is part of that WG.
When this new draft is not on that WG's charter, life gets interesting.


 

                      Spencer Dawkins

                      <spencer_dawkins@        To:       Aaron Falk
<falk@isi.edu>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>             
                      yahoo.com>               cc:
wgchairs@ietf.org

                      Sent by:                 Subject:  Re: WG Chairs
Training                                                        
                      owner-wgchairs@ie

                      tf.org

 

 

                      03/18/03 12:31 AM

 

 





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...

Spencer

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.

--- Aaron Falk <falk@isi.edu> wrote:
[deleted down to]
>
> 3. My approach is to make clearly charge the document editor with
>    ownership of extracting feedback and consensus from the
> mailing
>    list.  The editor is responsible for tracking and getting
> closure
>    on open issues.  An important part of this is having the
> editor
>    send issue summaries to the list (sometimes with proposed
>    solutions, sometimes not).  YMMV.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> ---aaron

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com