> So let me talk a bit about direct engagement. It's not the standard thing for > the IESG now, but you're going to see more of it soon. During the last WG > chair lunch, we had a discussion about copying all ballot DISCUSSes and > COMMENTs to the WG mailing list and I think this is exactly the right thing to do. > My plan is to, on a case by case basis at first, add the WG list to the magic field > in the datatracker to which such comments go. The only issue is that this has to > be reasonably managed.
Let me, as a WG chair, urge you NOT to do it that way, but to let the chairs handle the decision of what needs to go to active WG discussion and when. By all means, chat with your chairs and tell us what you expect. But let us manage the WG discussions. If a chair isn't being open enough for you, have further discussion. You always have the option of forcing the issue by doing what you suggest above if the chairs don't handle it as you'd like. The majority of the non-DISCUSS comments are dealt with by such minor editorial changes that opening the discussion up to WG comments will likely inundate the entire IESG unnecessarily (consider, say 5 comments each on 20 documents in one week, and a few vocal and unstoppable WG participants for each). Perhaps every approved doc should go back to its WG for a week for validation, to be sure they see the final edits AND the RFC Editor notes that the AD put there -- you do want those openly discussed by the WG, too, right? Even many DISCUSS comments are resolved with what will clearly be non-controversial edits, which should well be reviewed by the WG, but which don't need to have the WG engaged in the discussion. The doc shepherd needs to have the responsibility of taking it to the WG as appropriate. In this case, in fact, Murray did bring the discussion to the WG, without your needing to force it. Whatever we think of how the discussion went, not having it in front of the WG when it should have been was NOT one of the problems. > So, with all that said, I'm happy to get Stephen directly engaged on this particular > topic, though I think we now have a pretty good handle on what the issue is and > how to deal with it. I'll leave it to the chairs to tell me what level of involvement > they think is good at this point. I don't think any involvement by Stephen is needed at this point: he's already confirmed that he's happy with this version and will clear his DISCUSS. And, so everyone knows, Stephen was engaged and responsive with the authors and chairs, as we discussed options. The issue is that he wasn't engaged with the WG when the chairs brought the discussion here. That's likely in part because we didn't CC him when we did that -- I have no reason to think that he'd have avoided it if we'd asked him to be here. Barry, chair
_______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
