Let me also restate for clarity:
Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically
astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that
technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or
control (veto power).
There's no way to avoid that happening and still have quality control.
Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists
during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same
footing as everyone else's technical input. I agree that the IESG's job
is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc. That feedback should be
provided earlier, in an open forum.
I agree that input should be provided as early as possible. But some
kinds of feedback inherently follow Last Call, and limiting IESG input
to before Last Call would just serve to make the process even slower
than it already is (by requiring multiple IESG reviews rather than just
one), while lowering publication quality (by preventing IESG from
objecting to valid technical issues noticed after Last Call, and perhaps
discovered while considering Last Call input, but not directly related
to issues raised in Last Call).
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf