W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:17:13 -0700
Message-Id: <8d5ab313b86880ea8027407ccea11ea8@osafoundation.org>
Cc: "'webdav' WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On May 24, 2005, at 4:59 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> A lot of it is described in here:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc- 
>> shepherding-05.txt
>> Other details depend on the AD.
>> Lisa
> OK,
> I just read that draft. Questions:
> a) Is this working group running under this process? If yes, since 
> when?

I talk to Ted sometimes about his expectations.  We haven't had the 
need to discuss all the steps of the process, but it's my understanding 
that Ted expects chairs to sign off on the quality of WG drafts.  This 
kind of thing is also common discussion at IETF meetings so I guess 
I've kind of absorbed the new expectations without really having 
specific stuff to announce -- clearly we could have given the 
mailing-list-only people an earlier, if vague, warning of this.

> b) Who are the document shepherds for the current working group 
> documents that seem to be ready (BIND, REDIRECT, QUOTA)?

I probably would be.

> c) Section 1 asks...:
>    1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
>         and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
>         depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
> How is adequateness determined? And are there any suggestions about 
> how to get review by non-WG members? Speaking of which, how is it 
> decided whether somebody doing a review is or is not a WG member? For 
> instance, when Roy Fielding was giving feedback on specific BIND 
> issues a few months ago, was he doing this as a WG member? 
> (technically, anybody participating in this mailing list is a WG 
> member after all)
The reason I've most commonly heard for review by non-WG members is to 
get people with broad experience (of different protocols, several 
standards, several WGs, and of Internet architecture as it relates to 
several standards) to review documents coming out of WGs, particularly 
small WGs.  If that's the only reason then somebody like Roy certainly 
qualifies as having broad experience and would be a great reviewer no 
matter how much they'd participated in the draft and the WG.

If, however, the intent is to get a document reviewed by somebody who 
wasn't involved in design "groupthink" then you'd want somebody fresh 
to the draft.

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 17:17:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:34 UTC