-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Keith,
The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well.
Keith Moore wrote:
John,
I agree - the situation you describe does occur. However such cases
include "major technical omissions and disagreements" in addition
to minor technical differences. Actually I suspect that this boils down
to a disagreement between the AD and the author/chair about whether
the technical omission or disagreement is a major one. Sometimes
the AD is right, sometimes the author or chair is.
And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough
the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG.
I.e., this is the point where the AD is asking for changes based on what
I consider individual input.
I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but
I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such
disputes than either "let the AD win" or "let's sit on this until the IESG
holds its nose and passes it".
Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to "what
can you add/change to appease the other AD" rather than "what is
sensible to add".
Joe
Keith
There is another case, and I think it is the one to which John
was referring.
1. The WG comes up with some text, believing that text
is accurate and appropriate.
2. An AD lodges a "discuss", demanding a change in the
text and supplies the desired target text.
3. The author and/or WG conclude that the suggested
change is unnecessary and actually makes the document
worse, but does not change things sufficiently to be
worth a long, protracted, and certainly unpleasant
battle.
4. Based on (3), the author and/or WG say "ok, whatever
you like, make the change".
I think that, if we confuse this with "everybody is happy with
the suggested text", or "the process working well", we are in bad trouble.
One of our more interesting difficulties is that it is really
hard to tell this case from "AD suggests a change, everyone
agrees that it is a clear improvement". Document Editors and
WG Chairs usually know the difference, but even the AD may not
actually know, since the answer "ok,..., make the change" may be
the same in both this case and the "everyone is happy" one.
Where it does lead is to simmering resentments, and even doubts
about whether the IETF is the right place to get work done. If
an AD regularly demands this type of change (remember, I'm not
talking about major technical omissions or disagreements here),
those resentments and doubts will tend to get cumulatively worse
the longer the AD remains on the IESG and the more that the IESG
members tolerate demands for that sort of change from their
colleagues.
And, if it isn't clear, I believe that an "I'm going to lodge
and hold a DISCUSS until you change that" position is a demand,
whether or not it is appropriate in a particular situation.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through
ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which is a sublist
of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator
(ietf_admin(_at_)ngnet(_dot_)it).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCcVlnE5f5cImnZrsRAntpAKCYt0vdvFh041armyGvhtwjMyjx5QCgqTPa
fx09/v0JsB4OSQ+0uTyc4eI=
=fBAJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf