On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote: > As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review, I've > noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its documented > and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026): > > The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to > it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for > the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in > addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity > of the specification is consistent with that expected for the > maturity level to which the specification is recommended. > > Although I appreciate that IESG members are often overloaded, and the IESG > Review step is often the first time many see these documents, I believe they > should be expected to more clearly differentiate their "IESG Review" (based > on the above criteria) - and its accompanying Position ballot, with their > personal review. > > My concern is that by conflating their IESG position with their personal > review, the document process is inappropriately delayed and that documents > are modified to appease a small community that does not justify its position > as representative. > > How do others feel about this?
That it is too vague to comment on? Please point to specific examples where you feel an IESG member's review went beyond determining the technical quality or clarity of the specification. That would help make the sure-to-be ensuing flamefest more light-filled. --Paul Hoffman