I agree with you that pre-decision comments are preferable and that processes and procedures should allow these comments. I also agree that the example I proposed cannot happen under current procedures because there is not a comment window for meeting locations. I do not intend to speak to whether such a window would be a good idea. However, failure to take adequate comments before making a decision seems like a reasonable justification from my standpoint for reviewing that decision. Depending on the consequences of doing so it may even be appropriate to reverse such decisions. There is significant but *not infinite* cost to reversing a decision. There can also be significant cost to having a bad decision. There is also a cost to the review process itself. My expectation is that the review process will be used infrequently enough that the cost of reviewing and reversing decisions will be less than the cost of bad decisions. I fully understand that I may be wrong; we may need to add procedural safeguards if the cost of review ends up being too high in practice. Question: do you see cases where if a problem developed we'd be unable to deploy safeguards fast enough or unwilling to deploy the safeguards even given an actual instead of theoretical problem? How likely do you see these situations? --Sam _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf