Jari, *:
Disclaimer: see signature (i do not know the details of this specific case).
To me the problem seems to be going back to the means the IETF has for providing recognition
to participants contributing by review/feedback. As long as recognition for that contribution
is primarily left to the disgression of the listed draft authors, it will negatively impact
the amount of especially critical feedback/review the IETF will see. Unless a contributor has
a specific business reason to reject or help to improve a drafts, its most likely not worth
their time to fight / improve documents without better means of recognition than how its
defined today. Especially if their job role lives off showing recognition for their contribution
to their employer/sponsor.
As much as i hate overboarding processes, an explicit review tool tracking feedback
and approval/disapproval of documents may be able to help here. Especially given how
there is already tooling to show some form of IETF score based on explicit
authorship. You know who's tool i am talking about ;-)
Not claiming i am persuaded that the problem is significant enough to invest into an
explicit review tool, just saying its more than just difference of opinions or rough
consensus as you seem to claim (if i undestood you correctly).
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 07:19:20AM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> > i have never considered writng one. sour grapes make bad wine.
>
> Errors do happen, for everyone and for all organisations. We do not treat appeals as sour grapes at the IESG, IAB or other places that receive them. We consider them an opportunity to review whether something was missed. At the same time, we do not intend to give special treatment to an argument just because it is labeled as an appeal. Sometimes legitimate differences of opinion are just that, and consensus was rough.
>
> Jari
>
--
---
Toerless Eckert, eckert@xxxxxxxxx
It's much easier to have an opinion if you do not understand the problem.