IETF conflict review for draft-saintandre-jabber-scribe
conflict-review-saintandre-jabber-scribe-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-saintandre-jabber-scribe@ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-saintandre-jabber-scribe-04

The IESG has completed a review of draft-saintandre-jabber-scribe-04
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'The Jabber Scribe Role
at IETF Meetings'  as an
Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document
and IETF work.

The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-saintandre-jabber-scribe/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-jabber-scribe/

The process for such documents is described at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]

I'm not objecting but it is weird to have IETF process oriented stuff
(even if only advisory) handled via the ISE. For me, that should only
be done in cases where the text is something on which we can't get
IETF consensus (e.g. when the text says the IESG are a**holes:-). If
the text is something where we really should be able to get it done
in the IETF stream, then I think we ought do that.

I'd encourage everyone to think about whether this'd be better as
an IETF consensus RFC or else, as others have suggested, only as
a wiki.

But I'm not gonna try block it on that basis.

[Ballot comment]
For the IESG - the "why isn't this a wiki?" question comes up often enough with documents like this one and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-secretaries-good-practices/ that perhaps we should create a process guidance wiki. How long would that take?

If we wanted to do something about this, perhaps asking Nevil to check at publication time whether we've created a wiki and inserting a pointer to it would make sense?

I agree with publishing this draft as an RFC, because that's what we've got for now, I'm just suggesting that we make it easy for the community to maintain the text on an ongoing basis.

[Ballot comment]
While I agree a wiki would be nice, I do agree with Peter's point that our current setup doesn't make use of wiki's easy as the content can be difficult to locate.  It is easier to just refer people to RFCxxxx right now.  If we could improve the tools, then a wiki might be a great option.

[Ballot comment]
While I see no conflict with IETF work here, I also think this would be better published as a wiki page (perhaps on the working group chairs' wiki) than as an RFC.  Perhaps we should have an easily found and well publicised ietf-wide wiki for these sorts of things.