Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> By reserving all that pain for the very end of the process -precisely
> when the WG participants are out of steam- the end result sucks. The
> problem isn't that we're bad at commitment reviews, rather the opposite
> combined with the lack of interim reviews. All the _surprises_ come
> at the end, when authors/WGs least want them.
Bingo.
Maybe we could always have the responsible AD do his/her review during WGLC
call time, and WG chairs would actually need to coordinate with the AD to
make sure that they have the time.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
