Keith: >>> Convincing the entire IESG is a very high barrier, especially when >>> typically, most of the IESG just wants the issue to go away. It might >>> happen for a significant architectural issue, perhaps, but not for an >>> area-specific technical flaw. >> >> Here's the point: if an AD can't get at least one or two other ADs to >> read the document and agree to join in the blocking, then that AD MUST >> NOT be allowed to block the document. That's even the case if the AD >> thinks she's found a serious flaw. Because if, out of 14 others in >> the IESG, not ONE other is willing to read the document, understand >> the issue, and agree on it. > > That's also how I interpret the rules. I just don't think that this is > sufficient review. I think that in practice it makes IESG more-or-less a > rubber stamp for any issue that isn't easily fixed with small and often > inconsequential changes to the document text. > > The problem is, the ADs are very busy people, and their expertise has to > cover a wide range of topics, so there will be few IESG members who can > really understand a subtle issue. Document reviews outside of one's subject > area are very difficult and require considerable focus. GIven that, even if > only one AD catches a flaw in a document, there's a good chance (though not a > certainty of course) that it's something that warrants more attention. It's > far more likely that no ADs will find the flaw because nobody really took the > time to read the document thoroughly and to understand its implications of > the document outside of the narrow subject area of the working group. > > I understand (and agree with) the sentiment that, ultimately, one or two > people shouldn't be able to block a document. Nor do I want documents held > up for trivialities as, unfortunately, sometimes happens. But I've seen many > cases where working groups failed to do an adequate level of review outside > of their narrow areas of concern, and it appears that IESG's current rules > and workload make it difficult for problems to get fixed after a document > leaves the WG.
My experience is that a technical flaw, even if it is a corner case, is acted upon by the WG. There are rare cases where the WG has lost energy, but in general the WG wants to produce a quality output. As a result, technical flaws are not the place where things get messy. Rather, things get messy over issues that have a political component. Russ
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
