+1 to what Jari says below. >From my perspective, the important things to keep in mind:
1) Discuss criteria should be principles, not rigid rules. The details of the issue at hand always matter, and it will sometimes come down to judgement calls where reasonable individuals just might disagree. And if we try to replace judgement with rigid, overly specified rules, we surely won't like the results. i.e, the process requires we do X, when X is really a bad outcome overall. 2) There will always be judgement calls, where an AD and an author (or WG) don't necessarily agree. Fine tuning the rules won't fix that. By default, when there is disagreement, the presumption needs to be the AD could be right and needs to be convinced. That is the essence of what a DISCUSS is intended to be. If the dialog between author/WG/AD is not progressing, bring in someone else. I.e., the way to overrule a "stubborn" AD is to convince other ADs (and/or WG members) to weigh in based on the merits. If an author/WG can't do that, that says something... Thomas Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> writes: > I feel that the discussion is stuck on the different perceptions on > whether an AD's actions are either blocking reasonable progress, or > an essential correction to a mistake that went undetected. > I'd like to make a couple of observations. First of all, we at the > IESG process 10-25 documents every second week, and several points > (comment or discuss) are raised for each one. Given that both > working groups and the IESG consist of humans, I'm guessing that > none of us are making perfect decisions all the time. While the > Discuss Criteria document is very useful, I'd warn against trying to > codify the proper behaviour too much. It would be very difficult, > and ultimately it comes down to making a call on whether an issue is > really crucial for the Internet or not. > I feel that the discussion and pressure from other ADs and authors > and the rest of the working group is a more useful avenue to ensure > that we really are fixing the necessary bugs and only those. And I > know you are doing that - lets make sure we keep doing it. "If you > see something, say something". It is everyone's responsibility to > try to do the right thing, and if you feel it is not happening, say > so. I think the current IESG has a very good mood for receiving > feedback and acting on it. (Speaking as the longest serving member > in the current IESG, who frequently gets shown to be wrong by other > ADs or WG folk.) > In addition, as discussed separately, moving more of the issue > resolution to the open and to the WG is a good thing. > Jari
