On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 02:31:08PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter 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> > > In other words, the IESG simply busy-waits until all review issues > have been resolved, rather than finding and fixing the issues > personally. > > (If an AD wishes to post a review for a given draft, that would be > a personal choice, not part of the IESG workload.) Reviewers would be responsible for making sure that ADs find their reviews. WGs/ADs/shepherds should help make sure reviewers know this. I'm OK with this! Keith's point about insufficient review can still be addressed by having shepherds notice and report this (and ADs notice this independently), thus triggering additional AD/directorate review. > This is a procedural change, and would not prevent a substantive > DISCUSS in unusual circumstances. +1 Nico --
