On 12/04/2013 14:17, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
I'm not saying it doesn't serve a purpose. I'm saying that I know of drafts that have been nearly rewritten during such back-and-forth, so what popped out was largely unrelated to what went in. In such cases, I think the document should have been returned to the working group with comments, not worked on privately.
Fred
The Discusses and Comments are public, all versions of the draft are
public, the authors and chairs (who are usually the shepherds) see all
the review emails. Now maybe the IESG need to be more pro-active in
sending drafts back to the WG, although that may also be unpopular, but
if an author, shepherd or chair made that request I can think of few
circumstances where an AD that would likely refuse.
- Stewart