John, I agree - the situation you describe does occur. However such cases include "major technical omissions and disagreements" in addition to minor technical differences. Actually I suspect that this boils down to a disagreement between the AD and the author/chair about whether the technical omission or disagreement is a major one. Sometimes the AD is right, sometimes the author or chair is. I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such disputes than either "let the AD win" or "let's sit on this until the IESG holds its nose and passes it". 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. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf