Ok... soo...... Who's handling writing these once per month notes? I'd
be very interested in reading these (especially previous ones so I can get
up to speed)...
If no one is handling this, should we decide who should be as well as some
other things pertaining to it?
Andrew
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>
> In message <5.0.2.1.2.20010109070637.0398ca90@flipper.cisco.com>, Fred Baker wr
> ites:
> > At 05:58 PM 1/8/01 -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> > >If this is the case, an occasional note to the MPLS WG describing the
> > >status of the documents (or any WG which had a document held up) would
> > >greatly improve the image of the IESG.
> >
> > when the IESG is out of the loop? I can see the RFC Editor (who held the
> > documents up) doing that, or the chairs (whom both the ADs and I have been
> > pushing to get the issues closed) doing that. When I send a note to George
> > and Vijay saying "I read this at the RFC Editor's web site; what's the plan
> > for resolving it?", I would see copying the working group as somewhat
> > incendiary. Perhaps they have had the same opinion when they beat up the
> > guys holding the pen.
>
>
> We're off topic but since you asked a question, I'll reply. This is
> really more of a poisson discussion.
>
> Regardless of who is holding things up, it would be useful if someone
> in the process informed the WG of progress of a document. The
> appearance in the WG is that a document goes to WG last call, then
> goes to IESG, then there is dead silence after going into IESG hands
> for nearly a year and finally it gets published.
>
> If the IESG is reviewing docs, it would be helpful to periodically
> (monthly?) send a note to each WG indicating what the status is. If
> the doc goes to RFC editor, send a note to the WG. If the RFC editor
> is held up for more than a month, the editor's office should send a
> note to the WG indicating the nature of the delay.
>
> If the delay is over normative references, that is understandable. If
> the WG were to remain informed when long term delays occurs then there
> will be less appearance of IESG sitting on it.
>
> I'm not trying to whine some more, just trying to describe what the
> process looks like (in this case) from someone on the WG mailing list,
> but not a chair or someone on the IESG or close to the IESG process.
>
> Curtis
>
> ps- These words may haunt me if I ever end up on the IESG and are
> among those that has to keep people updated. I'd need to retire
> before I could even consider joining IESG so that seems safe. The
> point is that it is easier to say what other people should be doing
> than be in their position and having many tasks to keep up with.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT