I feel that the discussion is stuck on the different perceptions on whether an AD's actions are either blocking reasonable progress, or an essential correction to a mistake that went undetected. I'd like to make a couple of observations. First of all, we at the IESG process 10-25 documents every second week, and several points (comment or discuss) are raised for each one. Given that both working groups and the IESG consist of humans, I'm guessing that none of us are making perfect decisions all the time. While the Discuss Criteria document is very useful, I'd warn against trying to codify the proper behaviour too much. It would be very difficult, and ultimately it comes down to making a call on whether an issue is really crucial for the Internet or not. I feel that the discussion and pressure from other ADs and authors and the rest of the working group is a more useful avenue to ensure that we really are fixing the necessary bugs and only those. And I know you are doing that - lets make sure we keep doing it. "If you see something, say something". It is everyone's responsibility to try to do the right thing, and if you feel it is not happening, say so. I think the current IESG has a very good mood for receiving feedback and acting on it. (Speaking as the longest serving member in the current IESG, who frequently gets shown to be wrong by other ADs or WG folk.) In addition, as discussed separately, moving more of the issue resolution to the open and to the WG is a good thing. Jari