Text on AD shepherded individual/experimental documents

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

Trying to close this off because I submit verson -03 of the charter....

this is trying to get IESG consensus on the text for the last paragraph of 
section 5.2.2 of draft-iesg-charter-02.txt

My original text (H1):

	    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.

Thomas' text (TN):

   In some cases, an individual will ask an AD directly if they are
   willing to shepherd a document through the IESG. This can happen,
   for example, when an individual has already been discussing a
   particular document with an AD because the topic of the document
   naturally falls into a particular area. In such cases, the
   document is processed in the same fashion as an Informational or
   Experimental document from a working group.

Ted's text (TH):

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.

During review of the non-wg last call on the charter, I found that the 
comment that this shouldn't be taken without the author's consent was a 
good one (I had thought that obvious). But I don't want to invite the world 
to bombard us with requests for publication rather than going to the RFC 
Editor - the *normal* path should be the RFC Editor.

I also got an earful of KRE pointing out that the charter, this round, 
should document what the IESG *does* - not what it's supposed to do, not 
even what the IESG thinks it should do when it bothers to think about it.
I don't hold totally with the argument - but it gives us a reason to use 
less than strict language, because our process has been less than clear.

So I'm proposing a fourth alternative..... (H2):

	    An AD, in consultation with the author, may choose to put an
           individual's document directly
           before the IESG, without waiting for the document to be
           submitted through the RFC Editor.
           This document will then be processed in the same fashion
           as an Informational or Experimental
           document from a working group.

Note that the AD has the initiative, the AD consults the author, there are 
no criteria (we've been inconsistent), and that the review is the same as 
for WG documents (presumably somewhat more strict than for RFC Editor's, 
since we're bypassing the RFC Editor).

If there are alternatives you like better than others, please say so; if 
there are alternatives you think shouldn't go forward, please say so:

<EXAMPLE>

OK: H1
CAN LIVE WITH: TH
NOT OK: TN, H2

Reason: ...........

</EXAMPLE>