[BA] My comment is that having guidelines for this could help make the
advancement process more predictable. Thank you for working on this.
Jari Arkko said:
During the discussion of the two maturity levels change, a question was brought
up about DISCUSSes appropriate for documents that
--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 14:51 -0700 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
What's also not fair game is to raise the bar - to expect
the document at DS to meet more stringent criteria than it
was required to meet at the time of PS approval.
Hmmm, the demonstrated interoperability
Keith, thank you for the feedback. Some responses inline:
1. Fix the broken IESG voting system before you try to establish more decision
criteria.
I do agree with your general thinking here. The way that you describe the
different positions is what I personally try to achieve in my IESG
Would having professional editors make a difference here?
On Aug 31, 2011, at 2:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 14:51 -0700 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
What's also not fair game is to raise the bar - to expect
the document at DS to meet more stringent
Eric, John,
Would having professional editors make a difference here?
I know it is controversial, but there is at least one other area
in which we should be raising the bar for DS/IS by dropping the
bar for Proposed. If we really want to get PS specs out quickly
while the percentage of
On Aug 31, 2011, at 2:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 14:51 -0700 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
What's also not fair game is to raise the bar - to expect
the document at DS to meet more stringent criteria than it
was required to meet at the time of PS
On Aug 31, 2011, at 2:36 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Keith, thank you for the feedback. Some responses inline:
1. Fix the broken IESG voting system before you try to establish more
decision criteria.
I do agree with your general thinking here. The way that you describe the
different
On Aug 31, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Eric, John,
Would having professional editors make a difference here?
I know it is controversial, but there is at least one other area
in which we should be raising the bar for DS/IS by dropping the
bar for Proposed. If we really want to
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:34 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Eric, John,
Would having professional editors make a difference here?
I know it is controversial, but there is at least one other
...
I think the existing Discuss criteria already says very
clearly that
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 08:02 -0400 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
I think the existing Discuss criteria already says very
clearly that editorial comments cannot be blocking DISCUSSes.
So nobody has the job of making sure that the documents are
well-written in clear
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
The biggest problem with the current voting system (other than
misleading labels, which do cause real problems of their own) is the
presumption that the document should go forward no matter how few
IESG members read the document.
Keith makes
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:42 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
We ought to, IMO, be permitting
publication of PS documents at the second level as long as there
are no _obvious_ ambiguities that cannot be figured out (the
same way) by people of good will acting in good faith and with
help from WG lists
Dear Jari,
During the discussion of the two maturity levels change, a question was
brought up about DISCUSSes appropriate for documents that advance on the
standards track. We discussed this in the IESG and I drafted some
suggested guidelines. Feedback on these suggestions would be welcome.
thanks Spencer for pointing this part out.
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
IESG reviews should be considered as a review of last resort. Most
documents reviewed by the IESG are produced and reviewed in the
context of IETF working groups. In those cases, the IESG
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:08 -0400 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:42 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
We ought to, IMO, be permitting
publication of PS documents at the second level as long as
there are no _obvious_ ambiguities that cannot be
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:36 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
We ought to, IMO, be permitting
publication of PS documents at the second level as long as
there are no _obvious_ ambiguities that cannot be figured out
(the same way) by people of good will acting in good faith
and with help from WG lists
Keith,
Yes, to what you are saying, but I was pointing out that the text we're
discussing isn't intended to apply to moving what a working group has consensus
for onto the standards track, it's intended to apply to what the *IETF* already
has consensus for, that's already on the standards
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:47 -0400 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
...
IMO, there are two possibilities here. At this point, sadly,
both involve a chicken-and-egg problem. Such is life.
(1) We proceed as if Proposed Standards are what 2026 (and the
earlier culture)
On Aug 31, 2011, at 12:19 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
we either ought to be identifying real problems and fixing them
or just staying with what we have until we have the knowledge
and will needed to make real changes.
That would certainly be my preference.
Keith
There's something inherently wrong with trying to establish criteria for voting
DISCUSS.
My understanding was always that DISCUSS was supposed to be an indication that,
at a minimum, the AD needs to understand the situation better before casting a
yea or nay vote. The resolution of a
On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
My understanding was always that DISCUSS was supposed to be an indication
that, at a minimum, the AD needs to understand the situation better before
casting a yea or nay vote. The resolution of a DISCUSS might end up being a
yes vote, a no
On Aug 30, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
My understanding was always that DISCUSS was supposed to be an indication
that, at a minimum, the AD needs to understand the situation better before
casting a yea or nay vote. The resolution
On 2011-08-31 09:51, Fred Baker wrote:
...
If the AD raised a valid issue, the ball is in the author/wg's court to
address it. They can game this rule by not responding until after 45 days.
Not if the draft has been updated and the AD doesn't either cancel the DISCUSS
within
a reasonable
On 2011-08-31 08:18, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
Here are the suggested guidelines for documents that advance to IS:
http://www.arkko.com/ietf/iesg/discuss-criteria-advancing.txt
Comments appreciated.
To answer Jari's original request: +1 to these new guidelines.
Not worth nit-picking until we
24 matches
Mail list logo
