Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
Joe> delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe> feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe> than technical review).
I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;)
Seriously, I think most people would be really annoyed if I
wrote up a discuss of the form "this sucks for foo reason;
please coordinate with bar wg until they are happy then I'll
clear." They would be even more unhappy if I wrote up the more
realistic "please take this to bar wg and when they are happy
I'll re review."
Actually, I would consider a diplomatically-worded version of
the former very useful. The latter is the problem - it lacks
the reason the WG is being added as a hurdle.
IMO, anytime a doc is held-up via Discuss, the reason for the
That is visible in the tracker.
and the criteria under which it can be cleared should
both be required.
The IESG plans to publish a draft about what are, and are
not, valid criteria for a DISCUSS.
I fully agree with Joe, that kind of direct and concrete feedback
would at least make me much happier than what we have today, when
I have to find out myself whether there were any discuss comments,
who made them, hopefully to some degree understand what the issues
were about, and make qualified guesses on what I (as chair or
author) am expected to do to address them.
The theory is that WG Chairs and authors *should* be copied on
the DISCUSS comments, since otherwise they can never be resolved.
However, we lack some automation, so it does still depend on the ADs
Ietf mailing list