--On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 10:59 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
<olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> However, because the document will be read externally, I
>> prefer that it be "IETF" in all of the places you identify.
>> If we have to hold our noses and claim that the community
>> authorized the IESG actions by failing to appeal or to recall
>> the entire IESG, that would be true if unfortunate. I would
>> not like to see anything in this document that appears to
>> authorize IESG actions or process changes in the future that
>> are not clearly authorized by community consensus regardless
>> of how we interpret what happened in the past.
>...
> But one of the things that we should try to maintain in making
> that change is the notion that the IESG does have a almost
> key-role in doing technical review. You made the point that
> that is an important distinction between 'us' and formal SDOs.
It doesn't affect the document but can we adjust or vocabulary
and thinking to use, e.g., "more traditional" rather than
"formal". There is, IMO, too little that we do that is
"informal" any more, but that isn't the point.
> Therefore I propose that that last occurrence reads:
>...
> I think that this language doesn't set precedence and doesn't
> prescribe how the review is done, only that the IESG does do
> review.
>...
>
> In full context:
>
> In fact, the IETF review is more extensive than that done
> in other SDOs owing to the cross-area technical review
> performed by the IETF,exemplified by technical review by
> the full IESG at last stage of specification development.
> That position is further strengthened by the common
> presence of interoperable running code and implementation
> before publication as a Proposed Standard.
> Does that work?
The new sentence does work and is, IMO, excellent.
I may be partially responsible for the first sentence but, given
other comments, suggest that you at least insert "some" so that
it ends up being "...more extensive than that done in some other
SDOs owing...". That makes it a tad less combative and avoids a
potentially-contentious argument about counterexamples.
The last sentence is probably ok although, if we were to do an
actual count, I'd guess that the fraction of Proposed Standards
for which implemented and interoperability-tested conforming
running code exists at the time of approval is somewhat less
than "common".
john