-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Keith, The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well. Keith Moore wrote: > 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. And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG. I.e., this is the point where the AD is asking for changes based on what I consider individual input. > 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". Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to "what can you add/change to appease the other AD" rather than "what is sensible to add". Joe > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ > This message was passed through ietf_censored@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, which is a sublist of ietf@xxxxxxxxx Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator (ietf_admin@xxxxxxxx). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCcVlnE5f5cImnZrsRAntpAKCYt0vdvFh041armyGvhtwjMyjx5QCgqTPa fx09/v0JsB4OSQ+0uTyc4eI= =fBAJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf