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