Howdy Pete,
Please re-read John's message, which includes this: " It was described as a "directorate" because that term and organizational arrangement is familiar in the IETF, but it was quite clear (at least to many of us) that its mission was to advise, inform, and perhaps even educate the community on i18n issues, rather than merely advising the ART ADs and/or designating people to perform reviews late in the Last Call cycle. " As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with an AD requesting a review of a specific individual or set of individuals. But John's message is highlighting that this group is meant to be something different than the usual directorate. That concerns me, especially if it is meant to have a review power beyond "advising the ART ADs", which is what (ART) directorates do. Soliciting and receiving that advice is the state you're pointing to, and but John has asserted this is not that. Given that assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in what it is instead. I also am disappointed that the ART ADs did not simply ask the relevant questions of the people that they would or will put on the Directorate, if they are seeking the usual sort of advice. There is no power in the advice coming from a directorate rather than Individual 1 or 2. But that is a timing question, not a process point. regards, Ted On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:54 PM Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote: > > > Given that the first suggestion here was that a document could not go > > through last call until it had been reviewed by the group and John's > > message seemed to indicate that its authority was not simply to advise > > an AD, I inferred that the intent was to set up a group with an > > independent authority to foster work or block documents. > > Have a look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iesg. You > will see a state between "AD Evaluation" and "Last Call Requested" > called "Expert Review". At an AD's discretion, before a document is sent > for Last Call: > > An AD sometimes asks for an external review by an outside party as > part of evaluating whether a document is ready for advancement. > MIBs, for example, are reviewed by the "MIB doctors". Other types of > reviews may also be requested (e.g., security, operations impact, > etc.). Documents stay in this state until the review is complete and > possibly until the issues raised in the review are addressed. See > the "note" field for specific details on the nature of the review. > > Moving a document out of Last Call back to AD Evaluation to send it for > Expert Review, and blocking on that state until such review is complete, > is and has been standard operating procedure for a long time. I see no > independent authority being added here that overrides the discretion of > the responsible AD. > > > That seems to me to require discussion. > > I disagree. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/ > All connections to the world are tenuous at best >
_______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
