I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with review is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG document, that may not be bad, but I think having only one review or comment (excluding authors) within a WGLC is wrong in a WG review process. I think WG chair can find two participants to do it.
I recommend WG's process to change their purpose so we have to get *two participants* which are not authors to review the work and comment within WGLC (even small text comment is ok). I recommend WG chairs to think about this proposal, if not then I will try write an I-D for this and communicate with community. AB On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun < abdussalambar...@gmail.com> wrote: > How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the > manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question > managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on any issue > without an I-D written is the staff talking/working. > > If you write an I-D and to update the procedure related to the subject, > you should consider many issues and I think will need many years of > discussions, but then better effort result. IMHO, writing an I-D and > getting back up by community discussion (with rough consensus) is in the > top level and is the owner talking. > > I hope that when I review and comment on an I-D, it should be considered > as one owner is talking, but seems like editors think they are the only > owners. When IESG comment on the I-D it is managers/excutives talking. All > parts are important to the best of output. > > AB > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Abdussalam Baryun < > abdussalambar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Reply to below message >> The subject SHOULD be: Evaluating Review Process Performance >> I prefer the Subject is: Evaluating WG input, the WG review process, >> and the WG output, NOT IESG review. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Hi Joe, >> >> My comments mostly is on your message, but I comment also on I-Ds or >> RFCs related to IETF (including joky RFCs). >> >> I don't think it is write to evaluate the review of an IESG as long as >> when we created the I-D and adopted it into IETF SYSTEM, it is already >> agreeing on the methods of process that I-D is going through. So the >> problem is to evaluate three things not one: 1) the input, 2) the >> process review, 3) the output. >> >> We may make different input methods that go to another body than IESG, >> but if you decided to make I-D under IETF current procedure, it will >> have to go to IESG. >> >> I think the IESG are doing an excellent job, but it is best them to >> evaluate their performance not the community. Or it is better to find >> a body that evaluates the IESG performance not on this list. >> >> I consider your input on the list as a complain about the process, so >> I ask you to notice that your input has an error that needs evaluation >> befor going to process evaluation. You may evaluate output, but I >> remind you to evaluate input of WGs and inputs of individuals. >> >> I think the BIG problem of delay in I-Ds or RFC, is the cause of the >> WG not the IESG, if you do an excellent WG processes you will get >> quick results at IESG. >> >> AB >> +++++++++++++ >> Hi, all, >> >> >> 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? >> >> Joe >> > >
