[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Text on AD shepherded individual/experimental documents
I believe that Thomas' text invites individuals too much to
come directly to IESG/AD.
I think that Ted's is better, but still has that angel.
I can live with H1, And prefer H2.
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: maandag 2 juni 2003 14:42
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Text on AD shepherded individual/experimental documents
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>