-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between >> the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process. > > > If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like you're suggesting > some sort of reality-check process that is more lightweight than a full > appeal. Informally, we have that -- if one AD is giving me a hard time > for a dumb reason, I can ask another AD to try to talk some sense into > them. But that only works if the participant has a good relationship > with another AD, and while you hope that's true for WG chairs, that > might not always be good enough. Yup - it relies too much on goodwill and who-knows-whom, which is unfair to those who are trying to get things through for the first time. Working with the personalities can always avoid such issues; the rules are there to provide guidance where that either isn't possible or breaks down. > So maybe your concern would be addressed by some sort of "discuss > override" mechanism, by which the IESG could actively decide that a > discuss is inappropriate and disregard it. Such a mechanism would have > to be invoked explicitly, and would perhaps involve a consensus call by > the IESG chair... I'd rather force DISCUSS to be very explicit about the reason, and be limited to the areas mentioned, but specifically prohibit last-pass edits of the sort that ought to happen during last call or within the WG. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCcrdQE5f5cImnZrsRAv6QAJ9xLw4HlJVRQMuX6zpajOi+lz83cQCg41jt Gm2SV9e5FCxJil4UmVvdJjU= =76dT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf