Subject: RE: WG Chairs' training/information/resources?

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 08:24:35 -0500

I'm a new chair, I learn very quickly, and I attended the training luncheon.
There was too much information presented in a somewhat freeform style in too
small amount of time.

I wanted more of a step-by-step list of process guidelines (e.g., who has to
be emailed X at time Y as part of process Z).  Some of the training
presentations were excellent but rushed thus I'm all for breaking this into
different sessions.

Kimberly

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:09:35 +0100

After about one year as a chair, I attended the Atlanta WG
chairs training session, and found both discussions and the
presentations very interesting. Personally, I learned much
more this time than when I attended the session in SLC,
mainly because now I had some experience to build on.

WG chair training should not be an issue just for new chairs,
but we should all try to attend to improve our way of working
and learn from each other.

/L-E

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:09:37 +0200

Hi Steve,

> There have been a lot of complaints about the normative/informative 
> references split.  The odd thing is that the purpose of the split is 
> speed up RFC processing -- it avoids long queue holds while 
> waiting for non-normative I-Ds to be ready.

Yup, but it is the old transparency thing again.  It was being enforced
before it was announced.  It was not discussed before it was announced.
There was no simple explaination, like 'It makes the RFC editor's job
easier, it gives addtional clues to the readers about which references
are important.  Here is a quick example / use case so that authors
who have perform a split on existing documents have something to
base their work on.'

> In other words, though the split has caused one problem, it was in an 
> attempt to solve another.  I think it's helped.

I think it is a good thing, but the process to do the good thing was
flawed.  To me, that is what many folks are complaining about.

John