MAJOR ISSUE: "Concentration of power"
mankin at psg.com
Tue Jun 24 11:13:10 CEST 2003
>> - My understanding is that in the IESG, a shepherding AD does
>> a write-up of each document that is to come up for ballot.
>> Some of the other ADs often just read the write-up, trusting
>> it to be a fair evaluation of the document. ADs trust each
>> other's opinions of the technical quality of the document,
>> often voting "no objection" to a document that's out of
>> their area of expertise because they trust that the
>> shepherding AD or other ADs who are more familiar with the
>> document. Assuming my perception is correct of how things
>> work on the IESG, I think that's all good stuff. However,
>> working group chairs are *not* routinely expected to do
>> something like an AD write-up of a document.
I have some WG chairs who send a writeup when they ask for Last Call.
It does not have all the content that the writeups need to have, so I
use it as part of the end writeup. I usually write to the
Chairs/authors with some questions about implementation, as this is
one of the sections in the writeup.
But I think we could change our process and have the WG Chairs do the
writeup and have the shepherding AD advise on whether it touches
points that will give work best for the purpose described above. I
think this would be a very useful thing to do, for the reasons that
John describes. Also, the WG Summary (see below) is probably best
provided by the Chairs, rather than summarized by the AD from outside.
P.S. Here is what we start with for these writeups:
> Here's the template:
> The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Enhanced Compressed RTP
> (CRTP) for links with high delay, packet loss and reordering'
> <draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard.
> This document is the product of the Audio/Video Transport Working
> Group. The IESG contact persons are Allison Manking and Scott
> Technical Summary
> (What does this protocol do and why does the community need it?)
> Working Group Summary
> (Was there any significant dissent? Was the choice obvious?)
> Protocol Quality
> (Who has reviewed the spec for the IESG? Are there implementations?)
More information about the Problem-statement