Subject: "Extended Document Shepherding"

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 18:12:21 -0400

I had been floating around an I-D about the subject for a while, and
I've now converted the I-D into a wgchairs wiki page:

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/ExtendedDocumentShepherding

After I send this, I'm going to link that page from the existing
DocumentShepherding page.

The sense of the page is to (1) lay out specific tasks that shepherds
should be doing, (2) remind shepherds that they are responsible for
following up and pushing -- shepherding -- beyond just filling out the
writeup, and (3) suggest that shepherds could be assigned and could do
active shepherding during the working group's development of the
document, long before working group last call.

There's nothing here that changes any process; it's all suggestions of
how shepherding could work -- and how we could make the most of active
shepherding to keep the progress of documents moving.

Please give it a read, and I hope you, as chairs and shepherds, will
find it useful.  Please also edit it as you see fit, because I'm sure
I've missed some key bits that other chairs will think about.

Barry

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:36:53 -0400

> document, long before working group last call.

Thanks for this.

I was wonder if:  Stage: Shepherd Writeup Underway should be a new state
added to the datatracker, and then your table nicely answered me that it was
already a state.

As I regard shepherds as being WG chairs-in-waiting (for other or newly
created WGs), it would be wonderful if ADs had an informal list of people
they think should get some shepherding experience.  People wonder what it
takes to be noticed to become a WG chair, and it would be great if it became
known that being a document shepherd is a way to get noticed.
--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:34:11 -0400

> Thanks for this.

You're welcome.

> added to the datatracker, and then your table nicely answered me that it was

I put in the table at Allison Mankin's suggestion, and I agree that it
summarizes things nicely.

> known that being a document shepherd is a way to get noticed.

Yes, indeed.
That is certainly something I tell people when they ask me and when
I'm advising/mentoring: be a shepherd and do it well, and you'll put
yourself in a good position for being considered as a chair.  As an
AD, I also ask the chairs I know -- those in my area, as well as
others -- to put forth names of active, reliable participants whom
they feel they can count on... so, in general, if you want to be a
chair, make yourself known to existing chairs and ADs, volunteer to do
work, and do it well.  It's pretty much a foolproof recipe.

We should figure out a good place to collect this kind of advice where
people can find it.  We can certainly put it into the WGC wiki... but
will people who *want* to be chairs look there?  Is there another
place it should go?  The Tao?  Elsewhere?

Barry

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:59:23 -0400

Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > will people who *want* to be chairs look there?  Is there another place
    > it should go?  The Tao?  Elsewhere?

Section 4.1 of the Tao speaks of Chairs.

We could add:
   "WG (and BOF) Chairs are volunteers selected by the Area Directors when
   the WG (or BOF) is approved, and serve at the pleasure of the Area
   Director.  Good WG chairs are worth their weight in gold, and Area
   Directors are always on the lookout for new recruits.  A good way to
   get noticed by an Area Director is to become a Document Shepherd [REFYOURDOCUMENT]"

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:11:57 +0000

I’d be in favor of this. I might add a sentence that says “ask your favorite WG Chair, and s/he will probably be happy to put you to work.”

> On Apr 10, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>