On 01/12/2012 20:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi all,
I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
that's fine, it can die.
The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
"official" status whatsoever.
Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.
Regards,
Stephen.
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft
I find this a worrying proposal.
In the just-in-time world that we live in, too much of the review is
already tail driven. Reducing the time that people have to notice that a
doc is up for final review and then clear enough time in their calendar
against a myriad of other tasks makes it more likely that the quality of
review will diminish and hence the quality of our documents will diminish.
I would hate for us to act like an SDO that regards publication
milestones as crucial and ship the draft regardless of the state of the
technical design.
I would also note that sometimes it just takes time during review to
mull over the full implications of the design and to surface the issues.
With the current scheme if you miss a problem in WGLC, you can raise it
during IETF LC.
- Stewart