Subject: [HT-rt] Fwd: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 10:09:11 +0200

Hi all,

The discussion on i18n I think is relevant for this list, but the
description below is also interesting vis a vis the overview of the
working methods of other review teams.

Beatrice and I are working on a interactive model for doing a HR review
of QUIC - stay tuned - more info coming soon.

Best,

Niels

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 17:11:13 -0500
From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>, John C Klensin
<[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

On 6/6/18 4:19 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/6/18 3:06 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> I trust that you will attempt to
>> provide these additional details?
> Adam, what are the IESG's requirements and expectations regarding
> creation of a new directorate? Is it expected, for instance, that a
> charter of some kind will need to be provided and approved? Guidance
> would be helpful.

With the caveat that I may have overlooked some bit of formal process...

In the general case, the creation of a new directorate simply requires
convincing an area director that such directorate would serve a useful
purpose. While directorates don't have charters per se, as a practical
matter, they need to have a reasonably complete description of their
purpose and role.

I'll note that directorates have a broad range of formality and document
coverage associated with them: on one end, SECDIR and GENART have active
secretaries who assign every document during IETF last call to a
volunteer from a large pool of specialists (SECDIR) or generalists
(GENART). On the other end, the SDPDIR has a relatively small pool of
self-directed experts that authors, chairs and area directors can reach
out to for advice and review. The SDPDIR does not proactively review
documents.

In the specific case of establishing an i18n review directorate: based
on the comments made so far, I think we would want a carefully defined
process (possibly documented in an RFC, but perhaps just part of the
directorate description) that described what role the directorate would
play in the development and publication of specifications.

We would also need a plausible group of volunteers to execute that
process. For example, if the proposed process were to review every
document, in the style of SECDIR and GENART, I'd want to see a group of
i18n expert volunteers (or volunteers who are willing and able to
educate themselves into being experts) of roughly the same size as those
directorates. For reference, the SECDIR has 64 members, and GENART has
27. By contrast, if the role were to provide feedback only as requested,
it could be similar in size to the SDPDIR, which has seven members.

In practice, I suspect the process the interested parties might
reasonably settle upon would be somewhere in between, with someone
(possibly a rotating duty) providing light triage on documents during
IETF last call for the purposes of identifying which have an
intersection with i18n, and a pool of dedicated reviewers to whom
documents that do are assigned. The number of people such activity would
require to succeed is, of course, a judgement call, but based on the
size and function of existing directorates, I think we can safely say
that it is significantly more than seven, and somewhat less than 27.

/a

_______________________________________________
i18nRP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp