Comments on draft-wasserman-rfc2418-update-00.txt

James Kempf kempf at docomolabs-usa.com
Sun Oct 26 01:26:03 CEST 2003


Margaret,

Looks really good, only two comments:

- The section on what to do if a WG chair is also a document editor seems a
little unclear to me. I'd suggest the following rewording of the second
paragraph:

   If a WG chair also serves as the Document Editor for a WG document,
   that WG chair is expected to recluse from all decisions about the
   document, including calling concensus and judging quality. If the
   WG has more than one WG chair, as is typically the case, then
   the chair who is not also Document Editor will manage the
   working group process for that document. The roles of the WG
   Chairs must be made clear to the WG in this case. In rare cases, perhaps
   due to a role change, a lone WG Chair may also serve as a Document 
   Editor for a WG document, but that situation should be avoided when 
   possible, and must be corrected as quickly as practical by turning over 
   the Document Editor role to another person.

- I think something should be added in the appeals section (Section 3.5 in
the new document) about appealing quality and mailing list management
decisions. These changes are giving significant new authority to WG chairs,
which I think is absolutely necessary, but the document should also remind
people that they have recourse if they believe they are being treated
unfairly.

I think this will go a long way towards making the IETF process more
scalable, and reducing the management burden on the IESG.

            jak



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list