Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
comments before drawing conclusions from the 70% figure. They
apparently range from simple typos (expand acronyms) to differences
of opinion (WG chose X, AD prefers Y; both X and Y are at least
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, John C Klensin wrote:
(2) Several comments, during and after the discussion and most
precisely framed by Spencer Dawkins, that I may have made an
incorrect assumption about transition. The text more or less
assumes that the review panel membership would be new
and the IESG
Speaking only for myself, and at the slogan level,
I'm troubled with the assumption that the review panel rejection is
A Big Deal. This has unstated assumptions on what kind of people
you'd expect to be on the review panel and/or what kind of review is
expected.
As an occasional reviewer
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
comments before drawing conclusions from the 70% figure. They apparently
range from simple typos (expand acronyms) to differences of opinion
(WG chose X, AD prefers Y; both X and Y are at least plausible) to
adding various
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
comments before drawing conclusions from the 70% figure. They
apparently range from simple typos (expand acronyms) to
differences of opinion (WG chose X, AD prefers Y; both X and Y are
at least plausible) to adding various
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
My point is that each of these DISCUSSes kept a specification from
being approved for at least one two-week telechat cycle. I believe,
in the absence of data, that adding delays to a project makes it
easier to stretch out other delays, so two weeks is
Two observations, just my opinion...
--On Thursday, August 04, 2005 15:18 +0200 Spencer Dawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current
DISCUSS comments before drawing conclusions from the 70%
figure. They apparently range from simple typos
Hi, Pekka,
I rarely if ever argue with you about protocol stuff, because you're
pretty good at protocols, and our process IS a protocol, but I do see
returned to clear DISCUSS items on the IESG telechat agendas. So, I
bet you're right, but there is running code that we actually DO end up
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I rarely if ever argue with you about protocol stuff, because you're pretty
good at protocols, and our process IS a protocol, but I do see returned to
clear DISCUSS items on the IESG telechat agendas. So, I bet you're right,
but there is running code
(note is long - summary: Review panel SHOULD, in my opinion, be able to
send back documents to WG without it being a Big Deal. At least once.)
--On 4. august 2005 09:08 -0400 Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think it would be useful to analyze the nature of current DISCUSS
Dear Harald,
I agree, with one edit - s/to WG/to WG early in the process/.
(note is long - summary: Review panel SHOULD, in my opinion, be able
to send back documents to WG without it being a Big Deal. At least
once.)
The part where I stroke out about us continuing to think that
documents
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Spencer Dawkins writes:
Hi, Pekka,
I rarely if ever argue with you about protocol stuff, because you're
pretty good at protocols, and our process IS a protocol, but I do see
returned to clear DISCUSS items on the IESG telechat agendas. So, I
bet you're right, but
12 matches
Mail list logo
