1/ I believe that change would be factually incorrect
2/ I do not see that being factually correct about what happened says anything about
the community opinion about any future IESG decision to change processes.
Scott
On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/17/13 11:27 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> I just posted the third version of the draft at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02
>
> I would like to change "IESG" to "IETF" in five places:
>
> Section 1:
>
> "the IESG has evolved its review processes"
>
> Section 2:
>
> "IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards"
> "the IESG strengthened its review"
> "last chance for the IESG to ensure the quality"
> "cross-area technical review performed by the IESG"
>
> The IETF as a whole, through directorate reviews, area reviews, doctor reviews, *and* IESG reviews, has evolved, strengthened, ensured, etc., its reviews.
>
> Saying "the IESG" in these places implies precedent setting that I think would be bad. If the IETF capitulated to the IESG changing the rules on its own in the past, so be it, but I think it would be bad to indicate in a BCP that we think it's OK for the IESG to do so unilaterally.
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
>