Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Michael,
1. ADs physically don't have time to read intermediate drafts oustide
their own Area. So while they may suspect that a WG is heading in
a worrisome direction, they aren't in a position to do much about it.
2. ADs are collectively instructed by our rules to act as the reviewers
of last resort - it's the IESG that takes the final responsibility
to say a document is good enough.
3. Unfortunately, WGs do sometimes agree on drafts that prove to
have signifcant defects when critically reviewed outside the WG.
Put these facts together and you *will* get a reasonable rate of
significant (i.e. hard to resolve) DISCUSSes, and in the nature of things
they will come from ADs outside the Area concerned.
Brian --
My focus was actually a lot more narrow: I wasn't trying to insist
that AD's be super-human, and I honestly believe that the job they
do is extremely difficult. My gripe is when an outside AD takes an
interest in the work, goes to the f2f meetings, maybe reads the drafts
but then waits to IESG evaluation time to DISCUSS their issues. If
they know they have a problem(s), it would be *far* better to air that
sooner rather than later for all parties concerned. Doing this leads to
the perception of a imperious and capricious IESG.
This is a very different situation where you get a DISCUSS where
it's a surprise to all parties from an AD not involved at all; the former
should have been resolved before it got to last call, the latter is the
process working correctly. IMO.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf