Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Pekka (but not only Pekka),
If I understood Margaret last night, she was at least somewhat
comfortable with a hard split between area management and technical
review, so I'd like to at least ask one question...
In discussions with John Klensin, I (and I think we)
Hi,
Margaret's commentary on the standards review panel got me thinking of
the same thing I had considered potentially problematic.
If I understood her concern correctly, the point was that in the
standards review panel, the IESG would basically still continue
reviewing the documents (at
Hi, Pekka (but not only Pekka),
If I understood Margaret last night, she was at least somewhat
comfortable with a hard split between area management and technical
review, so I'd like to at least ask one question...
In discussions with John Klensin, I (and I think we) both assumed that
the
I think the concept of separating the responsibility for final document
review and approval from the responsibility for chartering and managing
working workings.
Yes, there are some tricky details. But it looks like they are solvable
and the approach leads to improvement in several regards.
