Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review by the IESG does serve a purpose. IMHO, if the IESG members sticks to their own criteria at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html, i.e. do not DISCUSS a document for spurious reasons, they are doing just fine. If they don't stick to those criteria, complaint is justified. Of course this will always be a matter of judgment. Regards Brian On 11/04/2013 18:54, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review, > I've noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its > documented and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026): > > The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to > it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for > the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in > addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity > of the specification is consistent with that expected for the > maturity level to which the specification is recommended. > > Although I appreciate that IESG members are often overloaded, and the > IESG Review step is often the first time many see these documents, I > believe they should be expected to more clearly differentiate their > "IESG Review" (based on the above criteria) - and its accompanying > Position ballot, with their personal review. > > My concern is that by conflating their IESG position with their personal > review, the document process is inappropriately delayed and that > documents are modified to appease a small community that does not > justify its position as representative. > > How do others feel about this? > > Joe >