Bill,
I think this can often be the reason why WG's get frustrated
an unhappy with IESG feedback. I agree with you that #1 can be
desirable, but how often are there so many discuss comments
that handling them individually would be a mess? The problem we
get from channelling all discuss comments through the responsible
AD is that the discussing AD(s) is(are) hidden behind an extra
abstraction layer, adding extra delay (as the responsible AD has
to get time to summarize and hopefully capture comments well),
and also increasing the risk for misinterpretations of what the
comment(s) was(were) really about.
So, although I see the point with #1, I believe the problem you
have identified with the current scheme is real, and we should
try to do something about it. More direct communication with
individual ADs (especially ADs from other areas who do have
comments on what a WG has produced) would hopefully also reduce
the number of myths about IESG/AD operations.
To a certain degree, ADs should feel responsible for making sure
their own discuss comments are addressed and cleared. It should
be in the interest of all involved parts to make it happen as
quickly and smoothly as possible (to avoid having to re-read
document over and over again but instead get closure on them).
Rgds,
/L-E
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Bill Fenner
Sent: den 8 maj 2005 19:51
To: Dave Crocker
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs
On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
If someone has the authority to block the long-term work
of a group of IETF
participants, they have an *obligation* to take their
concerns directly to
those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it.
Dave,
From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes
in this situation:
1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with
the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to
more effectively communicate the concerns.
2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually
have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary.
However, I think that the community tends to see instead:
1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield
2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG
I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back
as "Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change
to satisfy the IESG," even though I would have been willing to have
the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion.
I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that
WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's
issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might
have overlapping issues, etc. However, if it's perpetuating the myth
that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do
*something* about it.
Bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf