--On Friday, February 07, 2014 08:21 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > For documents from working groups or individuals, it is > typical -- and > generally considered to be required -- to have public review > proceed in > a manner that fully responds to concerns that are posted. > This can be a > laborious and even frustrating process, but the community > considers it > an important validation process for work carrying the IETF > impimatur. >... > Simply put, comments often are entirely ignored, or receive at > most a basic response, with no followup. >... > This sequence is substantially more work than what has > typically been > done. > > It's worth it. For whatever it is worth, I'm in complete agreement with Dave's problem description and plan of action. We might disagree (or not) about two things: (1) I am, generally and in this case, opposed to more rigid rules. I think that willingness and effectiveness at engagement with the community are important attributes for anyone on the IESG, IAB, or even IAOC and that those who behave as if such engagement and responsiveness are not important should be the subject of discussion with the Nomcom or, if necessary, demonstrations that the recall procedure is really workable. I note that, if rigid rules were made, the community's recourse if they are disregarded is exactly the same: discussions with the Nomcom or recalls. (Of course, appeals about specific actions are possible in either case.) (2) It seems to me that applying the review process Dave suggests to individual submissions of non-standards track documents could help clarify the appropriate uses of that process just by making the burdens on the IESG and community of AD sponsorship more clear to all involved. best, john