On 5/14/2013 6:58 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
when you look at the
changes that are made to drafts from point they go in, to point they
come out of IESG it seems to be a rare example where people don't
agree that major changes were an improvement and needed.
This is an important assertion; probably fundamental. Hence it needs
some sort of objective substantiation.
2) On the point of what the IESG should be doing, I would like to see
the whole IESG say they agree with the Discuss Criteria document and
will stay within that (or change it if they disagree).
+1
And a Discuss should be required to assert which criteria apply and how.
FWIW, I assume the formal list will need to change; this means that
there will be times when it is incomplete. Hence any specific AD
concern might not fit into the existing list. So I think it's important
for that to be ok, as long as the AD justifies the exception carefully
and thoroughly.
The cross area
review teams might want to also provide comments within this
context.
Interesting idea. Reviews don't carry the force of law, as a Discuss
does, but the discipline of distinguishing specific discuss criteria
from other comments in a review could be helpful.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net