--On Tuesday, 02 January, 2007 00:12 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
The problem of working groups that emit documents as their
last gasp before dying from lack of energy is, in my opinion,
a much harder problem to tackle than that of browbeating the
IESG into DISCUSS discipline - and one where, if the IESG's
energy was suddenly magically to double, I'd definitely advise
directing the windfall surplus.
Precisely because this subtopic is a harder one, one
clarification. I was not referring to "emit as WG last gasp"
situations, although those would clearly also apply. I was
referring to the more common situation in which a WG has reached
the exhaustion point on a particular document, possibly because
it has been the result of very careful, but tiring, negotiations
over language as well as substance.
For that class of document, a "please engage in fine tuning"
request, even if that request is accompanied by very specific
suggestions, can easily lead to an "oh no, we can't revisit
_that_ again" reaction that can lead to significant delays, even
if the WG and editors/authors are otherwise completely healthy
From my parochial point of view as someone who still believes in
a multi-step standards process, this is yet another argument as
to why the IESG should adopt and strengthen an "if it isn't
clearly harmful, let it go" attitude toward documents moving
toward Proposed Standard, regardless of what the current
"discuss" document does or does not permit. It would, IMO, be
entirely appropriate for the IESG to include with the approval
of a document --possibly even as part of the protocol action
notice-- a clear message that there isn't a chance that the
document would be approved for advancement to Draft without
considerable improvements in editorial quality and that the time
to start working on those issues is probably "immediately"...
but not to hold a would-be Proposed Standard document up waiting.
Ietf mailing list