Re: Proposed resolution of the AD-shepherded info/experimental non-WG document issue

[Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 11:25 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> > I suggest that we add the following text to the IESG charter:
> >
> > 	    When an AD decides that an Informational or
> >             Experimental document is of particular importance to the
> >             community, the AD may also choose to put it directly
> >             before the IESG. This document will then be processed in
> >             the same fashion as an Informational or Experimental
> >             document from a working group.
> >
> > And that we send a note to the RFC Editor saying that we have decided 
> > that
> > we want to have the corresponding arrow added to the RFC Editor's
> > flowchart. (or should that be "We ask the IAB to instruct the RFC 
> > Editor to
> > add...."?)
> >
> > The only formal justification for it is that the relevant RFC 2026
> > paragraph says "should", not "must" be submitted to the RFC Editor. 
> > But as
> > several have said - we have done it before, and want to be able to do 
> > it
> > again.
> >
> > Makes sense? All in favour - say AYE; all opposed - say NAY. :-)
NAY.  I think the text diminishes the role of the document author in
proposing the work, and it does not deal well with the case where
an individual forwards an item to the IESG and the status changes
in-flight.  From my perspective, one of the reasons to do this is
to take a document which came in with an eye on the standards track
and shift off the standards track, without forcing a proposer to
restart under a different process.  This could be covered in 5.2.1
or here, but I think it belongs somewhere.

I'd suggest:

As noted in 5.2.1, any IETF participant may forward a document to
the IESG for consideration as a standards track document.   Participants
may also forward a document to the IESG  either with the intent that 
they
become Informational or Experimental documents or may agree that they
become Informational or Experimental after discussion with the IESG.
If a participant forwards a document to the IESG under this procedure,
one or more Area Directors must agree to take responsibility for the 
document.
Once an Area Director has taken that responsibility, the  document will 
then be processed in
the same fashion as an Informational or Experimental document from a 
working group.
If no Area Director agrees to take responsibility, then the document 
may be
resubmitted through the RFC Editor for publication under that process.

					regards,
							Ted Hardie