Thanks for that info. That does make me feel a bit better. Keith
On Aug 15, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi Keith, > > Ø The only other formal level of review we have are the Last Call comments > which, given the volume of documents that get Last Called, amounts to a > fairly small and random chance that somebody outside the WG will happen to > notice the proposed document action and give the document a thorough review. > > I do not know whether to call these ‘formal’ but currently all documents that > go to Last Call also undergo three expert reviews – Gen-ART, Sec-DIR and > OPS-DIR. According to the scope of the documents a few more expert reviews > may be called as required by the WG, shepherd or AD – APPS-Dir, TSV-Dir, > MIB-Doctors, DNS-Dir, etc. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith > Moore > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 4:02 AM > To: Barry Leiba > Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; IETF > Subject: Re: IESG voting procedures > > > On Aug 14, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > > Convincing the entire IESG is a very high barrier, especially when > typically, most of the IESG just wants the issue to go away. It might > happen for a significant architectural issue, perhaps, but not for an > area-specific technical flaw. > > Here's the point: if an AD can't get at least one or two other ADs to > read the document and agree to join in the blocking, then that AD MUST > NOT be allowed to block the document. That's even the case if the AD > thinks she's found a serious flaw. Because if, out of 14 others in > the IESG, not ONE other is willing to read the document, understand > the issue, and agree on it. > > That's also how I interpret the rules. I just don't think that this is > sufficient review. I think that in practice it makes IESG more-or-less a > rubber stamp for any issue that isn't easily fixed with small and often > inconsequential changes to the document text. > > The problem is, the ADs are very busy people, and their expertise has to > cover a wide range of topics, so there will be few IESG members who can > really understand a subtle issue. Document reviews outside of one's subject > area are very difficult and require considerable focus. GIven that, even if > only one AD catches a flaw in a document, there's a good chance (though not a > certainty of course) that it's something that warrants more attention. It's > far more likely that no ADs will find the flaw because nobody really took the > time to read the document thoroughly and to understand its implications of > the document outside of the narrow subject area of the working group. > > I understand (and agree with) the sentiment that, ultimately, one or two > people shouldn't be able to block a document. Nor do I want documents held > up for trivialities as, unfortunately, sometimes happens. But I've seen many > cases where working groups failed to do an adequate level of review outside > of their narrow areas of concern, and it appears that IESG's current rules > and workload make it difficult for problems to get fixed after a document > leaves the WG. > > (and people keep arguing to remove steps from our process so that there will > be even less review after a document has progressed to Proposed...) > > The only other formal level of review we have are the Last Call comments > which, given the volume of documents that get Last Called, amounts to a > fairly small and random chance that somebody outside the WG will happen to > notice the proposed document action and give the document a thorough review. > > To put the question another way: What level of formal technical review, > outside of a WG, best serves IETF's goals? > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
