I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with review is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG document, that may not be bad, but I think having only one review or comment (excluding authors) within a WGLC is wrong in a WG review process. I think WG chair can find two participants to do it.
I recommend WG's process to change their purpose so we have to get *two participants* which are not authors to review the work and comment within WGLC (even small text comment is ok). I recommend WG chairs to think about this proposal, if not then I will try write an I-D for this and communicate with community.
AB
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on any issue without an I-D written is the staff talking/working.If you write an I-D and to update the procedure related to the subject, you should consider many issues and I think will need many years of discussions, but then better effort result. IMHO, writing an I-D and getting back up by community discussion (with rough consensus) is in the top level and is the owner talking.I hope that when I review and comment on an I-D, it should be considered as one owner is talking, but seems like editors think they are the only owners. When IESG comment on the I-D it is managers/excutives talking. All parts are important to the best of output.ABOn Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reply to below message
The subject SHOULD be: Evaluating Review Process Performance
I prefer the Subject is: Evaluating WG input, the WG review process,
and the WG output, NOT IESG review.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Joe,
My comments mostly is on your message, but I comment also on I-Ds or
RFCs related to IETF (including joky RFCs).
I don't think it is write to evaluate the review of an IESG as long as
when we created the I-D and adopted it into IETF SYSTEM, it is already
agreeing on the methods of process that I-D is going through. So the
problem is to evaluate three things not one: 1) the input, 2) the
process review, 3) the output.
We may make different input methods that go to another body than IESG,
but if you decided to make I-D under IETF current procedure, it will
have to go to IESG.
I think the IESG are doing an excellent job, but it is best them to
evaluate their performance not the community. Or it is better to find
a body that evaluates the IESG performance not on this list.
I consider your input on the list as a complain about the process, so
I ask you to notice that your input has an error that needs evaluation
befor going to process evaluation. You may evaluate output, but I
remind you to evaluate input of WGs and inputs of individuals.
I think the BIG problem of delay in I-Ds or RFC, is the cause of the
WG not the IESG, if you do an excellent WG processes you will get
quick results at IESG.
AB
+++++++++++++
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