Comments in line... On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 18:48 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2005, Ralph Droms wrote: > > But, I don't see how it applies here. I'm not claiming "Nobody was > > smarter than anybody else." Yakov explained it better than I have: "for > > each AD there is more than one person in the IETF who is more > > technically astute than that AD. So, why should the IETF decision > > process favor opinion of such AD more than the opinion of these other > > individual who are more astute that the AD ?" > > What is the context of technical astuteness? How do you compare > people with different technical focuses? You can't. Giving ADs a private veto (private in the sense of not discussed in public) seems to compare technical astuteness and assign more weight to ADs. I suggest public discussion avoids giving ADs' technical astuteness undue weight. > If an AD raises an issue about a document (from area X) that it > conflicts or causes serious problems (from the perspective of area Y), > how do you ensure that the more technically astute people > (particularly on Y but also a bit on X) participate in the discussion? By making the discussion public... > The key point here is that the AD from area Y might be much more > technically astute about that area than anyone in the WG producing a > document. So might any number of other IETF members... > Are you proposing that the IETF list is turned into generic discussion > board for all the documents, generating 20-50+ messages for every > IETF-LC'd document (every AD's "IESG review" plus clarifications, > follow-ups, outsiders opinions, etc.)? I suggest that AD input on a doc be considered equally with other input. Details are TBD. > What about Informational/Experiemental WG submissions which so far > have not been IETF LC'd? If there is a Discuss on such docs, the Discuss input should be reviewed in public... - Ralph _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf