Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Another choice, that perhaps could be considered, would be to initiate
> the directorate reviews slightly earlier in the cycle. E.g., at the
> point that the WG has said that is ready before publication but before
> the AD has reviewed and agreed to publish. In fact, input from the
> directorate reviews might be very helpful input to decide whether the
> document is really ready to progress, or if there are significant
> issues outstanding.
Yes. This.
(It's also when we could use an english editing pass.)
> Of course, this might mean that a second follow up lighter directorate
> review is needed to cover any changes that occurred between the initial
> review and the version going before the IESG ballot, but if that second
> review was focussed on the differences and issues raised previously
> then I would have thought that the increase in workload on the
> directorate would probably be fairly small, and hopefully manageable.
> I.e., I am assuming that the second review would be assigned back to
> the originate directorate reviewer.
Yes. Sometimes getting that acknowledgement is rather difficult.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
