Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One more comment and then an alternative thought experiment:
> On 08-Nov-19 08:44, Nico Williams wrote:
> ....
> Anyway: my new experiment would be one that the IESG could decide to
> start tomorrow. It's simply that the IESG would only ever issue one form
> of DISCUSS ballot, which would look like this:
> Pat Areadirector has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-somewg-somedraft-99: Discuss
> ....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> There are still open issues from the following reviews:
> <links to reviews>
okay, interesting idea.
> In other words, the IESG simply busy-waits until all review issues
> have been resolved, rather than finding and fixing the issues
> personally.
Let's be clear: that means that reviewers are expected to engage with authors
to get the issues resolved. This might surprise some reviewers.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
