Joe, On 05/14/2013 09:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > As important as the DISCUSS criteria are, there are NON-DISCUSS criteria > that ought to be more carefully followed - including the point that > disagreements with the WG or clarifications are not justification for > DISCUSS. I had assumed that the term discuss-criteria meant [1] which includes both. Not sure if that's also what you meant but worth adding the URL here just in case some folks aren't familiar with it. [1] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > DISCUSS is a heavyweight mechanism that holds up document resolution; Agreed. But its a keystone in the current process. So getting rid of it would be fairly revolutionary. (Not that I'm against a bit of revolving now and then:-) > it > should be used only where absolutely appropriate. s/absolutely appropriate/appropriate/ would be better. > If the IESG wants to > have a "discussion" with the authors, they are welcome to participate in > the WGs or IETF LC, or to contact them out of band. With our current tail-heavy process, and ~100 WGs that's impossible in almost all cases. On 05/14/2013 09:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote:> > On 5/14/2013 10:18 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> And a Discuss should be required to assert which criteria apply and how. > > +1 That'd be -1 from me fwiw. There aren't enough disputes about that to make it worthwhile and as I said the IESG is, believe it or not, pretty good at policing itself in this respect. S.