Subject: Re: WG chair use of the ID-tracker: Proposed tool additions

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:11:19 -0700

Eliot,

Your question made me realize that the variation in WG practices means
we should make the explanation clearer.  Some WGs, eg. DNSEXT, will not
send a document to WGLC till a minimum number of formal reviews are done 
(their current number is five, I believe).    Some groups have 2-3.
Others don't use formal reviews.  The state is indeed purely
elective.

I just noticed a bug in our text - I'll ask Dan Romascanu to confirm this,
but I think that often a WG is advised to ask for MIB Doctor Review after
a WGLC, so that the MIB Doctor is working with the WG's finished text,
and the WG just reacts to that review and then requests publication from
those review points.  I think the same is probably true of formal Security Review.

This is why the document can go from WG Document Awaiting Reviews to
Publication Requested. 

Does this make sense?  Or should it be (depending on what kind of review):

  WG Document Awaiting Reviews
             |
             v
  Active WG Document - Revised ID Needed
             |
             v
  Active WG Document - Document Shepherd Followup  [update published - check]
             |
             |_________
             |         |
             v         v

  In WG Last Call      Publication Requested

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:23:02 +0200

> Others don't use formal reviews.  The state is indeed purely

Just as a data point, the IESG retreat ten days ago reiterated on
the importance of early cross-area review, *before* WGLC, to
limit late surprises. Lisa Dusseault now owns this topic
within the IESG, and you will hear more in due course. From a
process point of view this is indeed elective, but there are good
reasons, that have been discussed on this list in the past,
for doing it.

     Brian

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:53:27 +0100

On May 16, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> the importance of early cross-area review, *before* WGLC, to limit  
> late surprises.

No argument. That said, even when requested, it doesn't always get  
followed through on. It is not only important to accept that it is  
important, but when asked, for the IESG to make it happen.