Keith,
There is another case, and I think it is the one to which John
was referring.
1. The WG comes up with some text, believing that text
is accurate and appropriate.
2. An AD lodges a "discuss", demanding a change in the
text and supplies the desired target text.
3. The author and/or WG conclude that the suggested
change is unnecessary and actually makes the document
worse, but does not change things sufficiently to be
worth a long, protracted, and certainly unpleasant
battle.
4. Based on (3), the author and/or WG say "ok, whatever
you like, make the change".
I think that, if we confuse this with "everybody is happy with
the
suggested text", or "the process working well", we are in bad
trouble.
One of our more interesting difficulties is that it is really
hard to tell this case from "AD suggests a change, everyone
agrees that it is a clear improvement". Document Editors and
WG Chairs usually know the difference, but even the AD may not
actually know, since the answer "ok,..., make the change" may be
the same in both this case and the "everyone is happy" one.
Where it does lead is to simmering resentments, and even doubts
about whether the IETF is the right place to get work done. If
an AD regularly demands this type of change (remember, I'm not
talking about major technical omissions or disagreements here),
those resentments and doubts will tend to get cumulatively worse
the longer the AD remains on the IESG and the more that the IESG
members tolerate demands for that sort of change from their
colleagues.
And, if it isn't clear, I believe that an "I'm going to lodge
and hold a DISCUSS until you change that" position is a demand,
whether or not it is appropriate in a particular situation.
john
--On Thursday, 28 April, 2005 14:12 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> So, as a recipient of a DISCUSS, I've learned the hard way
>> that the easiest way to resolve a DISCUSS is to ask the IESG
>> member for the exact text they want added and be done with
>> it. I don't think this is the correct way to do things, but
>> after working on a document for x number of years and trying
>> to push it through the last mile, often document editors just
>> want to get it done.
>
> When, as sometimes happens, everybody is happy with the
> suggested text, that process works well. We get closure on
> the issue in a short time.
>
> The problem is when authors or WGs demand that the IESG provide
> text that resolves a thorny technical problem. Sometimes the
> IESG needs to say "no, you can't do X, and it's your job - not
> ours - to find a different way to solve that problem". IESG
> is in a much better position to find technical flaws than to
> craft delicate compromises between competing interests. And
> sometimes it is counterproductive for the AD to suggest a
> compromise even when he has an idea for something that might
> work -as WG participants will fight an idea from an AD more
> than they would fight the same idea from one of their own.
>
> Keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf