On 05/14/2013 04:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Brian, et al.,
On 5/14/2013 1:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think this exchange between Cullen and Ted says it all, except
for one tweak: the IESG is allowed, even encouraged, to apply common
sense when considering the DISCUSS criteria. They are guidance,
not rules.
Also, everybody needs to take the word "discuss" literally. An
entirely possible outcome is that after discussion, the AD says
"Oh. You're correct. Pretend I never spoke!". Or the author says
"Oh. You're correct. We'll change it." Either outcome is good.
The trouble with this assumption is the IESG review process.
COMMENTS are appropriate for feedback, but the IESG review process is
too often considered an *opportunity* for the IESG to "make the
document better", or (in some case) have an opportunity for their input.
For that matter, working groups are too often echo chambers where a set
of people manage to isolate themselves from input from those whose work
they might otherwise effect. Some people seem to think that working
group output should be sacrosanct. There's absolutely no reason to
believe that. WGs often make technical mistakes that are uncovered by
external review. Even when no such mistakes are encountered, WG output
rarely represents rough consensus of all interested parties, and WGs
often fail to do due diligence in considering the interests of the broad
spectrum of those potentially affected by their work.
Of course IESG isn't infallible either, and shouldn't behave as if it
is. But review by experts from outside of the WG generally seems to
improve the IETF's output.
As important as the DISCUSS criteria are, there are NON-DISCUSS
criteria that ought to be more carefully followed - including the
point that disagreements with the WG or clarifications are not
justification for DISCUSS.
Strongly disagree. First, DISCUSS only means that there's something the
AD wants to discuss. In particular, disagreements with the WG about
technical quality are always appropriate for IESG to raise. The same is
true of requests for clarification.
Ted pointed out that DISCUSS doesn't mean the IESG doesn't like a
document - agreed, but it *does* hold up a document until the IESG
member clears it.
But there are also procedures within IESG to ignore a single DISCUSS
vote. So ultimately it takes multiple DISCUSS votes to hold up a
document indefinitely.
DISCUSS is a heavyweight mechanism that holds up document resolution;
it should be used only where absolutely appropriate. If the IESG wants
to have a "discussion" with the authors, they are welcome to
participate in the WGs or IETF LC, or to contact them out of band.
DISCUSS is not supposed to be a heavyweight mechanism, and actually it's
hard to imagine a lighter weight mechanism that gives IESG review any
weight. Informal communication doesn't generally work well in practice
because it lacks transparency, and it can cause additional delay without
resolving the problem. Voting DISCUSS puts pressure on BOTH the AD and
the WG to resolve the issue.
Keith
