--On Sunday, 26 June, 2022 09:06 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It's already the case that if the AD considers that the > changes after Last Call and IESG review are substantive, a > second Last Call can (and should) be issued. Isn't that > sufficient? It does rely on the AD's judgment, of course, and > should probably be done more often. > > I agree about the change log, although I tend to rely on > rfcdiff or iddiff. Brian, I think that is exactly the point. Some of us prefer to rely on diffs. Others may believe that a quick review of the change log may help them decide whether a more careful review (whether by diff, by carefully reading particular sections, or both) is in order. If we want more substantive reviews from more perspectives, we should make that process as easy and accommodating to different styles as possible. I think both Ben and Keith are correct too. The best solution will almost always be the responsible AD making a judgment call as to whether an additional Last Call is needed and erring on the side of doing one when there is doubt. Change logs (as well as diffs) can help inform that decision and, if the AD's choice is to ask for a review of the changes only, help write the announcement. And, if an AD concludes the changes are not substantive enough to justify an additional Last Call but people in the community disagree, there should be a good point at which to raise those objections, ideally without the heavy weight and time-consuming nature of an appeal. best, john
