Of course, we also get complaints whenever anyone raises an issue
without providing text. So, by a strict reading of the argument, the AD
is hanged if he provides text (directing the working group) and hanged
if he does not provide text (you didn't make clear what your problem is,
and how to fix it.)
In practice, we need to allow both sides of that to occur. But we need
to be careful in adjusting the process not to say things like "ADs
providing text is a bad thing, because it is all to easily read as a
demand." (And it is true that such text often is seen as a demand.)
Or, I suppose, we could say that ADs should never provide text :-)
Joel
Ted Hardie wrote:
The problems with the Discussing AD proposing text are more in the area
of scalability. I prefer seeing the authors (or shepherds) be active and
propose ways to resolve an issue. Or at least the initial proposal,
review and suggestions from both sides may be needed to converge.
This is not the big problem that other folks have been pointing to. The
big problem others have been pointing to is that DISCUSSes are
not being used to say "here is a technical issue, for which any
solution acceptable to the community is fine", but are instead being
used to say "here is a technical issue, and here's what it would
take to satisfy me that it is resolved". The second formulation
shortens easily in the minds of listeners to "satisfy me", and
when there is text presented, it becomes "add/change this as
below to remove my hold on your document". The other
clause ("or I won't remove my hold") is clearly heard even
in the cases where the AD doesn't say it out loud. Whether you
realize it or not, there are ADs who either say it about their
own positions or ascribe it to other ADs pretty freely ("That will
never get past the X ADs, unless you change to Y" being a
formulation heard in the halls all to often).
This not just about scaling problems.
<snip>
- WGs that for some reason have stopped caring about anything else than
getting the document published. Not care about the particular hoop that
they have to jump through to resolve a Discuss. (And by the same token,
not care about Comment level review issues at all).
The statement above is offensive, Jari. Blaming working groups
for exhaustion after a late surprise is insensitive to say the least,
and that is the case where the late surprise is warranted by
a technical issue that does rise to DISCUSS levels.
Blaming them for exhaustion after intransigence by specific ADs
who really do mean "satisfy me" is worse than insensitive. It's
blaming the victim.
Some of these issues could be improved with a clearer definition of
roles, and some additional guidelines on how to involve the WG.
You know, members of the IESG acting as a check on each other
and resisting efforts to force specific text changes would be useful
too. If you would like to help personally rather than simply
spread the blame....
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf