On 6/25/2008 9:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/25/08 11:44 AM, "Lakshminath Dondeti" <ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would like to hear others' opinions (I was going to put together a
draft with some ideas on how we might define these roles, but I want to
hear others' thoughts before I do that) on this topic.
I think your points are valid, but I'm not sure what the
effect would be if you controlled for quality coming out
of the working groups. That is to say, I think that
occasionally working groups are coming to consensus on
bad documents or bad ideas, and that the incidence of that
is increasing.
Well that is a disturbing trend as well. A long while ago now, one of
the then ADs mentioned that he needed to put a DISCUSS on a few
successive MSEC documents that I was shepherding and mentioned that he
wants to have a chat with the chairs on the quality of documents that we
are forwarding. I asked him to come to one of our meetings and explain
the expectations directly to the WG. That never happened.
But that is the kind of direction or steering an area director might do
if working groups are indeed producing bad documents and advancing bad
ideas. Presumably they are several cases here, viz., going against
charter or just being plain terrible at writing interoperable
specifications.
Pushing a document back to the WG is actually a better thing, I am
beginning to think. Sure that may introduce delays initially as we
learn how to operate in that mode, but the process of writing
specifications is more transparent and more consensus based than in the
current model of operation.
One of the problems with the current model is that comments toward the
end of the process, either AD's or reviewers', are weighted more than
comments during the working group discussions, at least in some cases.
If that's true it once again raises the
very familiar question of picking up quality problems
earlier in the process. Actually, that latter question
applies regardless.
Yes, I have heard it mentioned several times before, but I haven't seen
any concrete steps to achieve that. I am now making the case that if a
document makes it beyond the shepherding AD and put on the IESG
telechat, changes to the text should be relatively a big deal. There
can be changes, but they should be reviewed by the WG.
In some cases, there have been bitter disputes about taking change
control from authors and putting it in the hands of a WG, but the
current model toward the end of the process seems to put change control
in too few hands. That is what I am trying to highlight.
regards,
Lakshminath
Melinda
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf