Hi Loa, I agree with you discussions are our friend. I was focusing on processing time, not document quality. No dought if you stay longer time you will get better quality, but what about progress. So I mean call for discussions is for a time limit, as if no discussion happends then the call matures and the holding of the work stops as well. If DISCUSS is continue I never like to close it as long as it is continuous, but not delayed. In practice I never seen that DISCUSS of ADs with the WGs are having much continuous communication, it is delay with no time schedule. > 99,9% of the DISCUSSES improve our documents or the understanding > of them. I know that DISCUSSES with WGs improves our documents (don't forget that WGs are following milestones and WGLC periods), but DISCUSSES that have no time limit makes more delays. I hope we see similar times of WG into the IESG, so the communication can improve the processing time. AB On 5/16/13, Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2013-05-16 14:38, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > >> Discussions should have a time limit (can be one week), > > I totally disagree, DISCUSSES are our friends, they need to be > discussed until we have rough consensus; it seems to be a > manifestly bad idea to draw a deadline after seven days, if > someone come up with a satisfactory solution on the eighth. > > 99,9% of the DISCUSSES improve our documents or the understanding > of them. > > /Loa > > > like we have >> in meetings (2hours), if there is time we can know when things are >> needed to respond to, I usually ignore when there is no milestones or >> planing-time. Does IESG have milestones for documents >> processing/discussions? >> > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Senior MPLS Expert loa@xxxxx > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >