Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]