Bill, I think this can often be the reason why WG's get frustrated an unhappy with IESG feedback. I agree with you that #1 can be desirable, but how often are there so many discuss comments that handling them individually would be a mess? The problem we get from channelling all discuss comments through the responsible AD is that the discussing AD(s) is(are) hidden behind an extra abstraction layer, adding extra delay (as the responsible AD has to get time to summarize and hopefully capture comments well), and also increasing the risk for misinterpretations of what the comment(s) was(were) really about. So, although I see the point with #1, I believe the problem you have identified with the current scheme is real, and we should try to do something about it. More direct communication with individual ADs (especially ADs from other areas who do have comments on what a WG has produced) would hopefully also reduce the number of myths about IESG/AD operations. To a certain degree, ADs should feel responsible for making sure their own discuss comments are addressed and cleared. It should be in the interest of all involved parts to make it happen as quickly and smoothly as possible (to avoid having to re-read document over and over again but instead get closure on them). Rgds, /L-E > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > Bill Fenner > Sent: den 8 maj 2005 19:51 > To: Dave Crocker > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs > > > On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If someone has the authority to block the long-term work > of a group of IETF > > participants, they have an *obligation* to take their > concerns directly to > > those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. > > Dave, > > From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes > in this situation: > > 1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with > the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to > more effectively communicate the concerns. > 2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually > have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary. > > However, I think that the community tends to see instead: > > 1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield > 2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG > > I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back > as "Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change > to satisfy the IESG," even though I would have been willing to have > the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion. > > I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that > WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's > issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might > have overlapping issues, etc. However, if it's perpetuating the myth > that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do > *something* about it. > > Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf