Re: WG Chairs Training

[Spencer Dawkins <spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com>]

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