Wow. This was an interesting thread (that developed quickly). Why aren't you guys all on airplanes yet? So, to summarize a couple of points that other people made, but I didn't want to lose in the forest... ... DISCUSS has no BCP process standing today. I'm not sure that giving it process standing is the best use of any time we're willing to spend on process discussions. ... if people would feel better if the IESG reissued the discuss criteria document as an IESG statement, go for it. ... I understand what Ted is saying about "this needs to be a BCP". If we were, in any way, capable of making changes to BCP text during the same decade that we discover a problem, I might even agree. We're not. Pete's heavy sigh about the amount of stuff that's stacking up for PUFI is real, but is also the result of the community's decision to ignore process topics after Montreal. That existing stack does not make me want to put anything in BCP text that's not already in BCP text. Look. We can't even come up with new names for three levels of standards track that aren't stupid, and that really doesn't matter. What makes us think we can come up with a set of "non-criteria" that will be solid enough to put in a BCP that might last for more than a decade (please check the dates on most text in 2026, 2418, etc), especially if the downside is that an AD can then say "but that's not on the list of non-criteria"? If the concern really is a rogue AD, I'm pretty sure our ability to predict and preempt the path of rogue-ivity isn't up to this challenge (it would be the IETF BCP equivalent of proposing a "Law Prohibiting Cooking Intelligence to Justify Invading the Country Next to the Country that Hosted the Group that Attacked Us" for the USA in 2002). ... I'm thinking that unreasonable DISCUSSes will be unreasonable whether they specifically map onto a "non-criteria" in the current ION, or in some future BCP, or not. Unreasonable DISCUSSes should always be challenged. ... there is a pre-existing escalation process for dealing with unreasonable DISCUSSes, but it doesn't sound like we're particularly good at using it. ... there is a pre-existing process for dealing with an IESG that goes against the current in the community, whether they are actually violating BCP text or not. Various folks (who I consider smart friends) have pointed out that we've never "used" the recall process (also in RFC 3777). That's true, but in private discussions, I've heard about two recall petitions that were filled out and then shown to the subjects of the petitions, and the recall petition initiators were satisfied with the results, without "going public". So I'm not as concerned about a rogue IESG that says "yeah, that's what the ION says, but we don't care" (or even "yeah, that's what the IESG Statement says, but we don't care") as other people seem to be. If you're rogue enough, you can blow off BCP text, too. On the specific topic of "unfiltered" reviews, (as one of the original Gen-ART reviewers) I do see authors talking about "satisfying" reviewers. Please don't. "Satisfy" the COMMENTing/DISCUSSing AD, and "satisfy" the community. Always remember that http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html explicitly addresses the question, "What if the Gen-ART reviewer is just flat wrong?". That is not an accident... I think it would be nice for the IESG to collect, and maybe even put in one place, "the way reviews work". It's worth noting that even for Gen-ART, the process has changed significantly since we started writing reviews for Harald. Those reviews were done ONLY for documents on a telechat agenda, and they went ONLY to Harald, who either laughed, COMMENTed, or DISCUSSed. The reviewers weren't involved in further resolution, and I'm not even sure authors knew that Harald's comments came from someone else's review. Eventually, we started reviewing at IETF Last Call time, and copying shepherding ADs, and then authors, and then WG chairs, but that's not where we started out. So, for example, it probably IS worth finding out if the rest of the ADs who sponsor reviewing bodies also use Russ's division into - "did you consider the reviewer's comments?", especially when the review was issued as part of IETF Last Call, and - "how did you address this specific comment, which I agreed with?", whether the AD entered the comment as a non-blocking COMMENT or as a DISCUSS. Thanks, Spencer _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf