I am concerned that too many changes to a document is happening in IESG review and that many of these changes do not get proper WG review.
One solution to that, is to keep document changes early in the pipeline. Where changes done by the IESG is an exception rather than the norm. If the IESG is unhappy about something send the document back to the WG.
O. On 29 Jun 2023, at 08:56, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 22/06/2023 17:32, lgl island-resort.com wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2023, at 4:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
An aspect of process that this brings to mind is the etiquette to
observe during an AD Review. Assuming that the review is public, on the
WG list, and that the authors are responding in a timely manner and that
the WG Chairs appear to be awake, then is it a good or a bad idea for
other WG members to chip in with a comment, such as that is there
because I queried..... and this is the clarification; or we discussed
this in 2021 and I think that the I-D reflects the then consensus and so on.
I have mostly assumed that the AD and authors are having a private
conversation on a publis list and should be left in peace to resolve
issues but I am sometimes tempted to make a 'helpful' intervention.
IMO if there will be technical_change_proposals to the wg_adopted_draft, then all WG should follow up their work on the WG_list and MAY interact, the authors are the wg_editors but not the complete decision makers of technical_changes.
However, some authors don't want any intervention because they have done with the discussion with work_groups, but for quality more discussion while process levels can help future works.
AB
|
