On 5/9/05, Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)
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.
Indeed. Of course, the idea of having someone in the middle is really
that they will *facilitate* the discussion, so maybe we can find a way
to keep both aspects - direct communication and facilitation.
On 5/9/05, John Loughney <john(_dot_)loughney(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> wrote:
When is a DISCUSS not a discuss? When it is a "You have to fix this and I'm
holding a DISCUSS until it's fixed." I've seen variations on there as a draft
editor and it's not always clear.
Well, for things like "This misuses MIME in a way that will cause
problems in the future" or "This type of security has known flaws and
it would be better to go this other way", yes, it tends to be "fix
this, period." These are the "backstop" issues that Brian mentioned
(that the IESG would rather get out of the business of catching).
It helps to have an explanation of the DISCUSS.
Certainly. In theory, a DISCUSS without an explanation is not valid,
and I think the IESG has worked hard in the last couple of years to
provide actual reasons for DISCUSSes. As you may know from a few IETF
plenaries, I've been collecting various bits of data; of the 475
DISCUSS evaluations in my database (which, it turns out, includes some
that have been resolved; I have to update my data collection
methodology), only one has no text associated with it, and that one is
one of the ones associated with the buggy methodology, i.e., has been
(Of course, my database has no idea if the text that's there is
relevant or useful, but at least we're above the lowest hurdle)
Ietf mailing list