Dear colleagues, This is not to pick on Murray, who was not making the point I am trying to draw out of his remarks. Sorry, Murray. On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 08:45:41AM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > the process. So perhaps what's needed is an optional document state > prior to Publication Requested called Review Requested, I hereby propose that every single I-D adopted by every working group go into Review Requested state. Oh. Right. In my opinion, this thread would be a lot better motivated if we (and I emphatically include myself) did a lot more review, and did it a lot more carefully. As a WG chair, I have faced a number of occasions in which plain embarrassing flaws in documents made it past my own review (which means "through WGLC") and up to the IESG. As a participant, I have noticed more than once that my failure to review something I should have made it all the way to the IESG before someone said, "Uh, hey, there's an issue." Once frivolous DISCUSSes way outnumber serious ones, I'll feel like there's a problem. We're all busy, and by the grace of some power who doesn't explain itself to me some employers are willing to subsidize the Bulwark Panel of Final Review. Given my own experience of what I regard as mistaken or frivolous DISCUSSes, when every document has 5 or 6 really high quality reviews both in WGLC and IETF LC, I'll feel that we can start throwing stones. But today, not so much: most DISCUSSes are in fact attempts to discuss unclear or -- sometimes -- seriously mistaken parts of drafts. Maybe in others' corner of the IETF it's different, but I feel that I need to pick up my end of the log before telling other people to haul their end. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf