Speaking only as a Gen-ART reviewer, what Russ said is how I think it works, and Ted's concern that I might be privileged as a Gen-ART reviewer at last call time is the reason we're having that conversation.
Gen-ART reviewers have had that concern since we were writing reviews for Harald. We don't WANT to be privileged, and we've worked consistently to head that off. I provided this text that's in the Gen-ART FAQ: 'And always remember that the IESG ballot position is called "DISCUSS", not "IMPERIAL EDICT" or "BLACKMAIL"'. This should be doubly so, when a review team reviewer raised a concern. Thanks, Spencer From: "Russ Housley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ted: > >> >I really disagree. Gen-ART Reviews begin this way: >> > >> > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >> > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >> > _http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_). >> > >> > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call >> > comments >> > you may receive. >> > >> >This tells the recipients that the review fits exactly the role you >> >describe above. >> >>But your behavior does not tell the recipient that. If they were >>being treated as general Last Call comments, it would be up to >>the shepherd and sponsoring AD to resolve them, not up to >>the General Area AD. That leaves one set of people on the hook >>for making sure they are done and deciding when they are, >>and it is the same set no matter how the Last Call comment >>is generated. Your mechanism privileges one set >>over others (in that they are more likely to be held as blocking >>until resolved), is likely to be slower (since yet another busy person >>must be informed that something is resolved, and may miss it >>when it was), and does not encourage things to push earlier than >>Last Call (which is the opportunity I think you're missing). > > I disagree with this characterization. > > IETF Last Call (hopefully) generates comments. These are usually > resolved before IESG Evaluation, which is what you advocate in your > note. This is the normal case in my experience. The issue seems to > come up when they are not resolved. As I said in my previous note, > there are two cases. > > (1) The Gen-ART Review or other Last Call comments were ignored. If > someone takes the time to review the document at Last Call, they > deserve the respect of a response. Failure to respond is a > procedural objection. This is usually handled by the PROTO Shepherd, > WG Chair, or document author. If by the time the document reaches > IESG Evaluation, I have put a DISCUSS on documents to ensure that a > response does happen. (I did not say that the comments are accepted; > I said that a response is provided.) I have entered DISCUSS > positions like this for Gen-ART Reviews, SecDir Reviews, and reviews > from individual IETF participants. I've been careful to say that the > authors do not need to accept all of the comments, but then need to > answer them. > > (2) I agree with one or more concerns raised in the Last Call > comments that was not resolved. Thus, a very often a very small > portion of last Call comments become blocking comments. I tend to > break the unresolved review comments into DISCUSS and COMMENT, giving > credit to the source of the review. (I'm not trying to take credit > for someone else's work.) AD judgement is needed here, and I > consider the DISCUSS Criteria in making that judgement. > > Russ _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
