Bill,
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
Why do you think this would make any difference in practice? chances
are that an AD-pair would agree to hold a DISCUSS if either felt that an
issue should block publication.
As I have had to remind people of before, DISCUSSes aren't intended to
"block" publication - they are intended to start a discussion with the
authors and WG about how to resolve an issue. If the IESG actually wants
to block a document, it's more explicit and relatively rare.
However, you're correct - an Area DISCUSS would likely be the OR
of the two AD's opinions. And it's impractical, because there is generally
less than a week between a document appearing on the agenda and the moment
when the AD needs to enter a ballot.
From my point of view, a far greater source of delay is the
extraordinarily rapid change in the standards applied to documents by
the IESG; it seems that, if your document editor is very busy, by the
time a document is reworked to address one set of editorial standards, a
new requirement (leading to a new blocking DISCUSS) is likely to appear.
Well, that is why we published draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00
which includes among the non-criteria for a DISCUSS:
o Pedantic corrections to non-normative text. ...
o Stylistic issues of any kind. ...
o There is recent work or additional information that might be added
to the document. ...
o New issues with unchanged text in documents previously reviewed by
the AD in question. ...
seems like we could avoid this sort of logrolling by judging a document
based on the rules published and in force at the time it was submitted
to the IESG.
They aren't rules, they're guidelines, in general. However, I largely
agree with you - another reason for the above draft. But there are
surely exceptions (e.g. new IPR rules, a newly discovered security threat)
where currency is essential.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
