inline On May 14, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 2013, at 9:58 AM, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <flu...@cisco.com> > wrote: >> 2) On the point of what the IESG should be doing, I would like to see the >> whole IESG say they agree with the Discuss Criteria document and will stay >> within that (or change it if they disagree). The cross area review teams >> might want to also provide comments within this context. > > I am not entirely convinced that the DISCUSS criteria are complete. agree but I like and think they help even thought they are not complete > There are some rules in the criteria that are intended to curb abuse, and > that I think do have that effect, but that also would make some very > appropriate DISCUSSes fail to meet the criteria. If you could give some examples of DISCUSSes that you think are reasonable but fail to meet the criteria, it would be really great if you could provide some examples of that as I think it would help refine DISCUSS criteria. I think everyone agrees there could be things in that category but - that was part of the reason DISCUSS criteria did not end up as a BCP. > I don't really know how to address that problem. The IESG needs to keep using common sense and keep doing the right thing. I'm happy that the IESG deal with the unexpected. > E.g. the rule about not coming up with new DISCUSSes: if a DISCUSS winds > opening up a can of worms, it ought to be possible to enlarge the DISCUSS, > but I think that the rule about not adding new DISCUSSes after the first > DISCUSS tends to forbid that, and the reason given is a good one. Having > said that, I don't think the right answer is to ignore that requirement. I > don't actually have a good answer. I think the IESG has generally followed a good path of not adding new things, and at the same time if some huge problem was found later, still dealing with it. A long time ago it was hard to know when the IESG might actually finish review, that is not longer a problem but I don't want to go back to it being a problem. > > It's worth noting that ADs are not omniscient, and hence the DISCUSS criteria > apply to what the AD entering the DISCUSS _knows_, not to the full state of > all knowledge in the world. Of course and that is part of why the name DISCUSS. The AD wants to DISCUSS it with people and improve their knowledge of state of work and what happened in WG and why it is the way it is and resolve it. I'm perfectly happy with DISCUSSes being resolved with "once it got explained to me, I see it is not a problem and cleared". > If someone other than the AD has knowledge that they think means that the > DISCUSS doesn't meet the criteria, that doesn't mean the DISCUSS doesn't mean > the criteria. In this case, the critic needs to communicate it to the AD, > who may or may not agree with the critic's point of view. This is not to > say that it's never correct to say "this doesn't meet the DISCUSS criteria." > But the reason given should be that it would be obvious to anyone reading > the DISCUSS that it didn't meet the criteria. Sure but as everyone knowledge increases, I'd expect that AD would update the DISCUSS or remove it if it becomes clear it is not longer relevant. My experience has been IESG does do this. > The critic's expert knowledge can't be given as a reason. > > I have also noticed that some authors have the impression that a DISCUSS > means the AD doesn't like the document, or doesn't want the document to > advance, or is a non-negotiable pronouncement from on high that the authors > should not question. This is certainly not my motivation when I enter a > DISCUSS. I'm just some guy who got nominated by the nomcom. Hopefully I'm > qualified, but I don't claim to be right. I have seen DISCUSSes I've raised > improve documents, and I've seen DISCUSSes I've raised turn out not to > require any change, but just some discussion to clear up a misunderstanding > on my part. I very much hope that in the latter case, the author will argue > back, and not just make a change to shut me up! +1 to that. > > The reason I raise a DISCUSS rather than a comment is that at the time I'm > writing the DISCUSS, it appears _to me_ to be the case that there is a > problem that ought to be addressed before the document is published. I may > think it's generally a great document, but I want the concern I've raised to > be addressed before it moves forward. That is _all_ a DISCUSS from me > means. If I think the document is an irretrievably bad idea, I will > abstain, and say why I think so. > Again, +1 to that and my experience is most the IESG feels the same way. Thanks for sending your email. I think it help people understand how ADs think about DISCUSSes.
