-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch
<touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU>
wrote:
They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between
the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process.
If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like you're suggesting
some sort of reality-check process that is more lightweight than a full
appeal. Informally, we have that -- if one AD is giving me a hard time
for a dumb reason, I can ask another AD to try to talk some sense into
them. But that only works if the participant has a good relationship
with another AD, and while you hope that's true for WG chairs, that
might not always be good enough.
Yup - it relies too much on goodwill and who-knows-whom, which is unfair
to those who are trying to get things through for the first time.
Working with the personalities can always avoid such issues; the rules
are there to provide guidance where that either isn't possible or breaks
down.
So maybe your concern would be addressed by some sort of "discuss
override" mechanism, by which the IESG could actively decide that a
discuss is inappropriate and disregard it. Such a mechanism would have
to be invoked explicitly, and would perhaps involve a consensus call by
the IESG chair...
I'd rather force DISCUSS to be very explicit about the reason, and be
limited to the areas mentioned, but specifically prohibit last-pass
edits of the sort that ought to happen during last call or within the WG.
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCcrdQE5f5cImnZrsRAv6QAJ9xLw4HlJVRQMuX6zpajOi+lz83cQCg41jt
Gm2SV9e5FCxJil4UmVvdJjU=
=76dT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf