Comments in line... - Ralph On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 18:28 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well. > > [...] > > 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 don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back > on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their > judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information > supplied by others. I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically astute than the rest of us. I would actually feel more comfortable with ADs providing their technical judgment with the rest of us, through the same mechanism: WG or IETF last call. And that technical judgment should be expressed openly, in an archived WG mailing list, where everyone's technical input can be reviewed and everyone who provides technical input can be held accountable. If whoever wants to provide technical input to make a significant change in a specification, be it an AD or a WG chair or ..., can't make a sufficiently convincing case, in an open WG mailing list, that there at least might not be "rough consensus" for a specification, then I would say the specification doesn't need the change. > >> 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". > > It's as likely to boil down to "how do we get this WG to realize that > there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created?" > From a process viewpoint the two cases (one where a clueless AD is > pushing back against a clueful WG, and another where a clueless WG is > being pushed back on by a clueful AD) are equivalent, and it's > difficult to change the process in a way that solves one of those > problems without making the other one worse. OK, so if the AD or the external reviewer or whoever needs to push back, let's do it in the open, on a mailing list, during a last call... > (and yes, both of these are extreme (though not rare) cases - it can > also be a conflict between different kinds of cluefulness, where there > are legitimate concerns on both sides and it's hard for any individual > to see enough of the picture on short notice to understand what kind of > compromise would be reasonable.) > > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf