Re: Voting (again)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> The problem is not that ADs have nasty intentions. It's that the 
> otherwise-essential job of quality assurance has been taken to the
> extreme of  having ADs block completed work that has been developed in
> all the proper  ways.  This includes AD vetos (which are
> euphemistically called "discuss")  with non-normative issues or
> requirements for lists of adjunct -- ie, not  required -- work.

Speaking from personal experience as an AD for four years, I found it 
extremely difficult to use the "discuss" mechanism to block shoddy work 
by working groups.  There was considerable pressure from certain other
ADs to accept work that clearly did not meet RFC 2026 criteria, and 
if an AD tried to push back on such work with "discuss" the likely 
response was that the "shepherding" AD and/or WG would sit on it for 
several months or years, make no substantive changes, and blame the 
"discussing" AD for blocking their work.  In the end the document would 
usually get approved without the problems being fixed.

I understand that WGs that have been working for several years tend
to be exhausted and burned out and have difficulty doing good technical
work at all - and even more difficulty with a "reset" that would 
revisit old technical decisions even if those were poor decisions.
So in my mind, the problem isn't so much with the IESG process for
final approval of those documents - the problem is that WGs are allowed
to spend years pursuing approaches that have serious technical flaws
without any cross-area review or pushback. 

Keith

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]