On 4/11/2013 11:55 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote:
As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review, I've
noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its documented and
original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026):
The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for
the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in
addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity
of the specification is consistent with that expected for the
maturity level to which the specification is recommended.
Although I appreciate that IESG members are often overloaded, and the IESG Review step is
often the first time many see these documents, I believe they should be expected to more
clearly differentiate their "IESG Review" (based on the above criteria) - and
its accompanying Position ballot, with their personal review.
My concern is that by conflating their IESG position with their personal
review, the document process is inappropriately delayed and that documents are
modified to appease a small community that does not justify its position as
representative.
How do others feel about this?
That it is too vague to comment on?
Please point to specific examples where you feel an IESG member's review went
beyond determining the technical quality or clarity of the specification. That
would help make the sure-to-be ensuing flamefest more light-filled.
I've already done that within the IESG; the point of the message wasn't
to have dozens of opinions of whether my feedback was beyond scope, but
whether others were getting that feeling as well. At least first...
Joe
