Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-secretaries-good-practices-06.txt> (IETF Working Groups' Secretaries) to Best Current Practice

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:34:25 -0700

At 06:26 12-06-2014, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'IETF Working Groups' Secretaries'
>   <draft-secretaries-good-practices-06.txt> as Best Current Practice
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2014-07-10. Exceptionally, comments may be

I would give credit the anonymous reviewer who pointed this out.  A 
Working Group Chair has the responsibility to make decisions on 
behalf of the working group.  There are times where one or more 
participants disagree with a decision which was taken.  The question 
of who is responsible comes into play if the WG Secretary took the 
decision.  There is the word "responsibility" in the heading of 
Section 3 of the draft.  I suggest avoiding that word in the draft as 
I don't think it is okay to blame the WG Secretary for process 
issues.  Some people may consider that it is fair game to do that.  I 
suggest also reviewing the usage of the word "accountable".

In Section 3.1.1:

   "Note that WG Chairs may wish to set policies for accepting
    discussion's slot requests."

I suggest using the word "guidelines" instead of "policies".

Section 3.2 uses the term "WG document's adoption polls".  I suggest 
avoiding the word "polls" as it sounds like voting.

   "Decisions are sometimes taken by WG Chairs during WG sessions."

It has been said that decisions are taken on the mailing list.  The 
above can be a problem when BCP 25 is invoked.

I would like to thank the authors for putting the effort in doing this work.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy