On 07-Nov-19 12:01, Keith Moore wrote: > On 11/6/19 5:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Here's a thought experiment. >> >> Update the standards process such that the approval of Proposed Standard >> RFCs, after an IETF last call including some specified cross-area review >> requirements, is done by the WG consensus process with the consent of the AD . > > I don't think a typical WG chair is in a good position to review things > from a broad perspective. The ADs are in a MUCH better position to do > that, precisely because they are exposed to everything that IETF does. But it doesn't scale, or so the ADs are telling us. And my thought experiment wouldn't take ADs out of the loop; it would take them out of the detailed review work. > Also, the WG chairs are properly concerned with the specific perspective > of their WGs; they know where the hard battles were fought. Their WG > needs them to be in a position to defend the WG's work. To expect them > to do both that and the broad review would put them in a conflicted > position, and it's probably the broad review that would get shortchanged. That's why the idea would be to make the WG chairs the *visible* approvers, which IMHO would significantly change their incentives. I certainly agree with the idea of naming the WG Chairs, the AD and the reviewers in the published RFC: "Here are the people you should complain to: ..." just as much as "Here are the people who share the glory: ...". Brian
