Hi, The evidence seems to show that the IESG is getting faster at their job and WGs are getting slower at theirs. I don't see any need for "DISCUSS Rules". All the AD reviews I've experienced have improved the document, sometimes a lot. All DISCUSS issues got cleared with reasonable (even good) solutions.
IMO, there is no question that applying the right expertise at the appropriate time in the WG draft process would improve the entire system and avoid surprises during I* Last Call. The question is the best way to do that. Andy On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com>wrote: > And your bottom line is exactly what te rules say, what I said, what Ted > said, and what Joe agreed is reasonable. It also matchesthe practice I > have seen. Even the discuss that I had a lot of arguments with did include > proposals for paths forward. Sometimes they were ard to understand. > That's probably inevitable with all these opinionated humans doing this. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 5/14/2013 7:15 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> On 5/14/2013 3:46 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> >> To be fair, for what it's worth as a WG chair I've had the latter >>> experience at least as often as the former in the use of DISCUSS, and >>> I've observed some DISCUSSes cleared without any change at all to the >>> document in question. >>> >> >> We suffer a continuing logic error in the IETF. We use "sometimes it >> happens the other way" as if that negates the existence and problem >> cause by what is being criticized. >> >> So, yeah, of course a Discuss /sometimes/ causes a small delay with no >> changes. /Sometimes/ ADs use the sledgehammer of the Discuss to ask for >> a bit of conversation. That's all irrelevant. >> >> What's relevant is the nature of the mechanisms, its capability, and the >> cost it can and does impose on authors and the working group. >> >> When a serious defect is identified, it's entirely worth the cost. >> >> When it isn't, it isn't. >> >> In all cases, the person imposing the cost has an obligation to >> facilitate closing it, including making clear the criteria for closing >> it. It is unreasonable to have those who must do the work to clear it >> play a guessing game. >> >>
