Keith, > On Nov 6, 2019, at 3:01 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. 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. I suspect that for a lot of documents, broad cross area review beyond what Brian proposes is not necessary. Not for all, but many things that working groups produce are very incremental. We could have two tracks, one as Brian proposes, and another where the AD thinks more review is needed. I suspect this would significantly reduce the load on the IESG and would not reduce quality. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
