Hi Tony,
You wrote:
>> Short version: If (as I think Joel implies) it is a condition
>> for passing this draft to IESG approval that all comments be
>> either addressed in the current draft or (I guess) be the subject
>> of persuasive counter- arguments in RRG list discussion, then
>> this condition has not been met.
>
> There is no requirement that all comments be addressed.
OK.
>> There seems to have been a pattern of the chair silently ignoring
>> constructive comments about this draft - from me and at least two
>> other people.
>
> As part of the editorial function, I exercise my best judgement as
> to what comments should and should not be reflected in the text.
> Purely editorial comments (typos, grammatical issues) I typically
> accept immediately (assuming they're correct ;-). Semantic changes
> get more consideration. If significant shifts in semantics and/or
> comments about sensitive sentences are suggested, I will typically
> wait a bit to try to judge the response of the group, both public
> and private.
OK. You sometimes respond to and accept on-list suggestions made by
an individual, without any supporting messages from other people.
You sometimes acknowledge a suggestion and state your reasons for
disagreeing with it.
My concern is that you sometimes give no acknowledgement of
suggestions, and no explanation of why you reject them.
I would have thought that people with something to say about the
report, or about suggestions for improving it, would be most inclined
to write about it to the list, rather than just to you privately.
Why should I or others have full confidence in your approach to
running this group, and finalising its report(s) when you apparently
give serious weight to what some people communicate with you
privately, when those people choose not to place their views on the
record via the list (and so encourage further discussion), while you
also choose to silently ignore perfectly constructive on-list
contributions which you apparently disagree with?
Why not respond on-list to the suggestions you disagree with and
explain why you think they are a bad idea?
>>> The current I-D addresses all comments that were received
>>> during the review period. (There actually were a few comments
>>> beyond the one reviewer.)
>>
>> I think the first sentence is incorrect.
OK.
> It would have been more relevant to say that it addressed all of
> the comments from IRSG members.
OK - there were two messages from the one ISRG member who was assigned
to this task.
I understand from your reply that you believe there is no need to
acknowledge or explain your approach of ignoring some efforts which
were made to contribute constructive suggestions for RRG
Recommendation report you are responsible for.
I also understand that you believe this lack of engagement or
acknowledgement is part of how you try to ensure the RRG meets one of
the primary goals in the charter:
The RRG will have an open general discussion mailing list
where any topic of interest to the routing research community
can be discussed, and topics related to scalable routing
architectures are particularly encouraged.
I suggest that if you want to encourage full and constructive
discussion, by people with a wide range of ideas and expertise - and
in so doing improve the confidence people like me have in your running
of the group - you should provide more encouragement for people who
make the effort to contribute. For instance, I suggest you should
lead by example when it comes to providing constructive criticism, in
part by responding to things you disagree with and explaining the
reasons behind your disagreement.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
