On 05/05/2013 02:47 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
The tail is heavy in two different ways:
* significant review and modification takes place in IESG review,
after the WG and the IETF have declared the document done
* the burden of the review, managing the discussion, making sure any
changes fix the problem and don't break anything else often falls on
the IESG and even a single AD
When the write-up is done, the WG perception is that their work is done.
Some reviews that come after that, and specifically the IESG ones, are
considered as coming from trouble-makers.
We should change that perception.
I'm all in favor to keep the WG involved for any reviews: directorate,
IETF LC, IESG. Currently, we lack consistency wrt where the feedback is
sent (we're working on that). Now, I feel it's going to imply more
follow-up work for the ADs as the discussions might take longer. This is
where the document shepherd could help.
Benoit,
while it is desirable to get wider reviews happen earlier in the process
there is obviously a challenge: You don't want to ask for reviews before
the document is stable and you cannot ask many times since good reviews
are "expensive".
As you indicate there is the perception that the document work is
finished when the document gets sent to the IESG (maybe because the
discussions that happen afterwards are less visible).
One approach is to increase visibility of the IESG discussions (and the
feedback from various review teams) to the working group and the other
approach is to get AD feedback earlier to the working group.
Ciao
Hannes