On 5/14/2013 5:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote:
That is what happens exactly because the DISCUSS holds up the
document, and most ADs don't want to burn time stalling their documents
if there's a way around that delay.
It can only happen if an author values getting their document
through the process more than getting it right, in which case one has to wonder
why they tried to publish the document in the first place. (I assume you
meant "authors," not "ADs" above).
No; there are times when the document authors are pressured by ADs to do
anything to resolve pending DISCUSSes, rather than stand up to the fact
that the issue is either incorrect or the DISCUSS is invalid.
The IESG processes documents quite
quickly; I don't think it's valid to say that there is some terrifying
stall in the document process as a result of the IESG, such that an
author needs to chew off their leg to finally get the thing through.
Well, there are IESG members who stand their ground even when it's
incorrect, such as:
- claiming that determining WG consensus is up to the AD,
then repeatedly demanding evidence of that consensus
- failing to drop a DISCUSS even when it meets their own
criteria
Those hold up a document too, as you should know (these are examples
from your review of my doc). As does demanding a document revision while
there remain open ballot positions, as was done today - on this
document, to address your pending DISCUSS.
Joe
