-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>>"Joe" == Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > Joe> delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging > Joe> feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather > Joe> than technical review). > > I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;) > > Seriously, I think most people would be really annoyed if I wrote up a > discuss of the form "this sucks for foo reason; please coordinate with > bar wg until they are happy then I'll clear." They would be even more > unhappy if I wrote up the more realistic "please take this to bar wg > and when they are happy I'll re review." Actually, I would consider a diplomatically-worded version of the former very useful. The latter is the problem - it lacks the reason the WG is being added as a hurdle. IMO, anytime a doc is held-up via Discuss, the reason for the discuss and the criteria under which it can be cleared should both be required. > But I do agree with you that the job of being AD would be easier if > this option existed. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCe49NE5f5cImnZrsRAhKdAJ9zvxpcIA+8glxMCx26n9HEqS3QXgCfXnNM dv4+qHnSW6UzoeJt2wxMF6o= =57L8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf