Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

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

 



Below:

On 5/14/2013 6:04 PM, Joe Touch wrote:


On 5/14/2013 3:00 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
It seems to me that if it is really a discussion, then there may be many
possible things which could resolve it, and the AD raising the question
may not know exactly what is feasible to clear it.  Otherwise it is a
demand, not a discussions.  And in my experience while ADs can be pushy
(like the rest of us), they are generally prepared to have discussion.

Thus, I find your second item below to be inappropriate.

At the same time, discussions do have to be resolvable.  If there is no
way to address it, then it is not a discuss.  But "required to clar" is
the wrong picture as far as I can tell.

Point taken - at least some indication on what is expected to be changed
toward a path of resolution.

As you note, otherwise it's not a DISCUSS.

Joe
Thanks Joe. I am glad we are on the same apage about the kind of clarity of description needed in discusses. We may have different experiences, but the vast majority of the discusses I have dealt with have been sufficiently clear on the question of how to approach resolving them. Sometimes an actual conversation with the AD has been necessary to understand the issue and reach a practical point for resolving it, but that is a communication style issue, not a discuss substance issue.

Yours,
Joel



Yours,
Joel

On 5/14/2013 5:12 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
I am *not* suggesting getting rid of it.

I *am* suggesting that it needs to be used only where necessary, and
that 'necessary' ought to be clearly proved by:

     - citing the specific DISCUSS criteria involved

     - providing explicit information on what would
     be required to clear the DISCUSS





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