Hi Arturo, and all, (sorry that this message is long but I want to make this my last post on the subject)
The reason of this message/subject is that I want to avoid some group working together to achieve their purpose (while they may be fogetting the IETF purpose) within a WG. If I am a company and interested to publish a standard in IETF, I may think to find interest in my market place (i.e. interest usually in my local country or city which depends on relations), when that is gained then the purpose is to publish it in IETF while there already gauranteed sort of back up in that country/city. I name that a *group purpose* not the *WG purpose*. Group purpose is good but may lack technical experience, which needs following WG purpose. Any group (usually authors+ WhoInterestedToPublish) needs to convence the WG by technical discussions. Consensus and running code, may work for the group purpose more than the WG purpose if the WG are not reactive to inputs. I recommend that WG chairs are already aware of this and try to find independent reviewers from the WG to put some effort before it is submitted to the IESG. Usually WG participants are bussy and may not be interested to argue with a group (one reviewer may get many replies with arguments that he/she has no much time to DISCUSS, or reply). That is why the IESG's DISCUSS position is strong and important to make the group answer to purpose, and that position is weak in WGs. Groups always don't like delays in process, but WGs don't like changing their IETF purpose or their IETF vision. I recommend that WG chairs try to do their best to have two independent WG participants to review (not authors and not from the same company of authors or same state/city). If you send me a reply I will reply privately so I don't disturb, because the subject may not be important for others, thanking you, AB We need diversity :-) ------------------------------- On 4/12/13, Arturo Servin <arturo.ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4/12/13 4:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> 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. > > It seems plausible. > >> >> 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. > > Possible we would need any how an I+D to change the process and mandate > this new review. > > I haven't made my mind but it seems like a good idea. > >> >> AB > > Regards > as >
