On 5/9/05, Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More direct communication with > individual ADs (especially ADs from other areas who do have > comments on what a WG has produced) would hopefully also reduce > the number of myths about IESG/AD operations.
Indeed. Of course, the idea of having someone in the middle is really that they will *facilitate* the discussion, so maybe we can find a way to keep both aspects - direct communication and facilitation. On 5/9/05, John Loughney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When is a DISCUSS not a discuss? When it is a "You have to fix this and I'm > holding a DISCUSS until it's fixed." I've seen variations on there as a draft > editor and it's not always clear. Well, for things like "This misuses MIME in a way that will cause problems in the future" or "This type of security has known flaws and it would be better to go this other way", yes, it tends to be "fix this, period." These are the "backstop" issues that Brian mentioned (that the IESG would rather get out of the business of catching). >It helps to have an explanation of the DISCUSS. Certainly. In theory, a DISCUSS without an explanation is not valid, and I think the IESG has worked hard in the last couple of years to provide actual reasons for DISCUSSes. As you may know from a few IETF plenaries, I've been collecting various bits of data; of the 475 DISCUSS evaluations in my database (which, it turns out, includes some that have been resolved; I have to update my data collection methodology), only one has no text associated with it, and that one is one of the ones associated with the buggy methodology, i.e., has been resolved. (Of course, my database has no idea if the text that's there is relevant or useful, but at least we're above the lowest hurdle) Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
