From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Ole Trøan <otroan=40employees.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: 29 June 2023 07:33 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. <tp> Most of which increases the workload of the AD. I would like chairs to be more pro-active. I like the chair who said 'Noone has commented on this I-D during WGLC so it will not go forward'. It seems to me unfortunate that other chairs say that there were no comments during WGLC so it will be forwarded to the IEESG. Tom Petch O. On 29 Jun 2023, at 08:56, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:27 PM tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: On 22/06/2023 17:32, lgl island-resort.com<http://island-resort.com> wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2023, at 4:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx><mailto: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
