I have for a long time been uncomfortable with the level of document changes that happens after the document leaves the working group. >From my perspective I would have preferred a document process, where the working group "owned" the document until publication. For cross-area issues: The responsible AD together with the chairs should identify cross-area conflicts and need for collboration earlier in the process. And as chairs/responsible ADs escalate cross area issues, those should be discussed in the IESG while document is in the working group. If a document isn't good enough, the IESG should send it back to the working group. Not try to "fix" it themselves (often in a small group between chairs, authors and ADs). Basically I want the IESG for leadership. I want the IESG for quality control. I do not want the IESG to have to read every document, nitpick or even (gasp) override working group consensus. Executive summary: More leadership less document editing. Cheers, Ole
