At 08:33 01-05-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
I wrote a blog article about how we do a fairly significant amount
of reviews and changes in the late stages of the IETF process. Next
week the IESG will be having a retreat in Dublin, Ireland. As we
brought this topic to our agenda, Pete and I wanted to raise the
issue here and call for feedback & ideas for improving the situation
with all of you.
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/05/balancing-the-process/
Here's my write-up:
(a) Why should the document be a Proposed Standard?
Because the intended status says so.
(b) Describe the depth and breath of review.
Yes.
(c) Does the document require review from other areas?
No.
(d) Describe the consensus.
Yes. I ignored the stupid comments.
There IESG is faced with the inevitable choice of either turning a
blind eye or discussing about the document. The later raises late
surprises. The simple fix is for the IESG not to discuss about the
document. :-) The not-so-simple fix is for the IESG to find out
where the WG failure occurred and take remedial action. It's
politically incorrect to fire WG Chairs. That constrains the
remedial action to a slap on the wrist [1].
Who is going to do all these early cross-area reviewing? Is all that
work for free?
The executive summary is that the working group is not working. The
Last Call does not work. The directorate/team reviews is a
work-around [2] to fix that.
Regards,
-sm
1. If someone gives you a slap on the wrist, it is a mild punishment.
2. a plan or method to circumvent a problem without eliminating it.