wayne wrote:
Personally, I think the IESG would be nuts not to require such testing
and that we would be nuts not to have all our ducks lined up in a row
before we go to the IESG asking for a PS RFC. The requirements for
going from a PS to a DS are much higher, in particular needing two
implemenations of every feature and I suspect that the IESG will not
require that level of testing.
As a different data point, note that the IESG did approve this working
group with a very tight timeline, knowing that there would be trade-offs
in that approval. I have also discussed a number of the issues raised
in the group on the IESG's bi-weekly calls, so I hope there will be
few surprises to the IESG in the work.
Perhaps the best advice I can give you here is to worry about getting
the engineering right rather than worrying about the IESG. The first
tends to take care of the second, and the second rarely takes care
of the first.
regards,
Ted Hardie