Brian,
However, I'm not entirely convinced that the unrestricted veto really
exists. Before I can think about solutions to this problem, I need to
reexamine the process and convince myself that it really is a problem.
A DISCUSS isn't a veto. I've seen numerous cases even in my short experience
as an AD of DISCUSSes leading to, er, discussion and a new draft (or edits)
that solves enough of the issues that the AD removes their DISCUSS. I don't
think I've seen any new DISCUSSes that I would categorize as frivolous or
individualistic.
What we do have is a long tail on the distribution of the dwell time of
DISCUSSes. I haven't had a chance to analyze the root causes of the very
old DISCUSSes.
Just a word from the peanut-gallery here. As a recipient of DISCUSSes, I
sometimes had trouble understanding what the DISCUSS was about. Sometimes a
DISCUSS is a request for a discussion on a point, because something was not
clear. Sometimes it is a warning, like "Are you really sure you mean this?
You should reconsider it or at least come up with some proof that it is a good
idea." And sometimes, it is an outright veto, meaning "I will not let this
document pass until this is fixed, even if the WG had fully examined this issue
and purposefully chosen the solution." Often, it is hard to understand what is
meant by a DISCUSS, and due to IESG overload, it is not always possible to
engage in a meaningful discussion of a DISCUSS. I will note that recently
things seem to be headed (slowly) in a more possitive direction, but ...
So, as a recipient of a DISCUSS, I've learned the hard way that the easiest way
to resolve a DISCUSS is to ask the IESG member for the exact text they want
added and be done with it. I don't think this is the correct way to do things,
but after working on a document for x number of years and trying to push it
through the last mile, often document editors just want to get it done.
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf