Last Call Review of draft-secretaries-good-practices-06
review-secretaries-good-practices-06-opsdir-lc-brownlee-2014-06-27-00

Hi all:

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
operational area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Abstract:
  "The Working Group Secretary's role was succinctly defined in RFC
   2418. However, this role has greatly evolved and increased both in
   value and scope, since the writing of RFC 2418. This document updates
   RFC 2418 by providing a new definition of the Working Group
   Secretary's role. This document also provides a compilation of good
   practices and general guidelines regarding the fulfilment of the
   role."

This draft presents a list of things that a "WG Secretary" might
do to help with running a WG.  It clearly states that although
it's a good guide to what's needed in running a Working Group, it's
not prescriptive, i.e. not intended to be any more than a guide.

- - - -

My usual set of questions about operational matters (can this be
implemented, is it interoperable, etc) seems completely irrelevant
for this draft; instead I'll just make some more general comments.

My WG Chair experience has only been with small WGs, in all of those
the WGs got along fine without any Secretaries.  I agree that for
a large WG, with many active work items, having a Secretary could
be a big help to the Chairs.

Having said that, it's a good guide to what's required to run a
good WG.  In reading through it, I noticed two things that were not
mentioned:

- Section 3.1.1, "Pre WG Session" the discussion about setting
    meeting agendas gives the impression that the agenda won't
    change once it's published.  That's probably true for a big WG,
    but maybe it's good to remind people that the agenda may change
    a little before the meeting takes place?

- Section 3.2, "Tracking of documents' issues" raises another point
    for me.  I find it useful to get a few people to volunteer to
    review drafts during WG Last Call, or even earlier.  For WGs
    with a busy mailing list, comments and discussion as each new
    revision of a draft provide useful feedback for the Chairs when
    they have to decide whether consensus has been reached.  However,
    I believe that finding reviewers for Last Call is A Good Idea.

I've seen some discussion of whether this draft should be BCP or
Informational.  My guess is that Informational better describes
what it's trying to do, but since it clearly updates RFC 2148 which
is a BCP, this one should be a BCP too.

- - - -

A few typos:

s3.1.1, slot requests:
  "2) checking with the Chairs that they would not have received
   requests sent to them only." seems an odd way to say this.
   How about something like "checking that the chairs and Secretary
   agree on the list of requests for discussion slots."

s3.1.1, submitting WG session agenda:
  s/participants having requested/participants who requested/

s3.1.1, jabber relays and minute takers:
  s/as well as provides/as well as providing/ ?

s5:  s/events to which/events for which/
     s/achieve such relationship/achieve such a relationship/


Cheers, Nevil
Co-chair, IPFIX and EMAN WGs

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nevil Brownlee                          Computer Science Department
 Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
 FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand