Subject: Re: "Stuckees?"

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 16:17:15 -0800

At 04:15 PM 2/26/2003 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <003801c2ddda$a6ab7a20$846015ac@T23KEMPF>, "James Kempf" writes:
>>I think this is an excellent idea. I'm not sure if it would help with the
>>management issue, but it is worth a try. We have the same management issue her
>>e.
>>People are expected to author drafts, and they don't get credit for reviewing 
>>or
>>otherwise contributing.
>
>
>We already have that.  See 2.12(2) of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt

There are (at least) three issues getting mixed together here, and
it's important to keep them separate.

1) recognition for work done
   This is needed by some people to justify time spent on WG activities
   in a non-principal role (e.g., other than WG Chair, Author/Editor,
   or perhaps Design Team member). The Contributors section in an RFC 
   serves this purpose.  

2) visibility of reviewer resources
   This is needed by some WG chairs and ADs to determine if there
   are enough sufficiently competent people willing to provide detailed
   technical feedback on a specific work item.  This visibility is
   needed before the IESG approves the charter, and may also be useful 
   during the work effort.  

3) commitment of reviewer resources
   This is needed by some WG chairs and ADs to properly staff a project.
   It is insufficient to rely on preliminary straw polls because nobody
   indicating approval in such a poll is actually obligated to provide 
   this feedback function.  If the WG creates a design team, the team 
   members may provide this function, but not if they are also co-authors
   of the WG document that needs to be reviewed.  Therefore, it may
   be useful to get some non-principal WG members to commit to this
   review function.

>                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
>                http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

Andy

---

From: "Carl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 11:25:33 -0800

Does anybody still believes that the term Stuckees is a suitable label at
all, internally or externally?

Coming from Europe originally, I don't associate the term with anything
edible as some people have.
To me the term Stuckee gives me associations of somebody stuck in their
thinking, not open to new ideas.

Carl-Uno Manros
Chair of IETF IPP WG

10701 S Eastern Ave #1117
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Tel +1-702-617-9414
Fax +1-702-617-9417
Mob +1-702-525-0727
Email [email-masked]