So, you arguing that all DISCUSSes by ADs are indeed justified and necessary. It is great to hear that our leadership is completely unbiased with regard to technology, does not follow their own (or a company) agenda, misjudge their expertise in a certain area, showed long delays in responding, etc. As a document author I remember a couple of cases where certain ADs showed "interesting" behavior. As Jari said at the plenary it is difficult to talk about this topic without going into specific cases but on the other hand we don't want to upset individuals either. Hence, the story is difficult. My suggestion: Talk to the Nomcom if you think that certain ADs treated you in an unfair way. Ciao Hannes On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary: > > Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see > numerous "no objection" or missing ballot responses. > > Secondly, the drafts are de facto reviewed by review teams > these days (gen-art, security area, etc.). This serves to alert > the ADs if a draft really needs careful review. The workload is > more reasonable than it used to be. > > Thirdly, when I was in the IESG, I was surprised quite often by > *glaring* errors that had not been picked up before. Somebody has > to be responsible for catching these, and today it's the IESG. > > Fourthly, because of the exact same discussion that Glen raised in > plenary, the IESG defined and published its criteria for DISCUSS > several years ago. Sometimes there are inappropriate DISCUSSes > and those need to be pointed out when they happen. > > I hear the IESG members responding exactly right to this question. > > -- > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf