I've never seen an AD insist that a WG devote valuable face-to-
face meeting
time to "checking" work that was peripheral to the WG's interest.
Check again, please. I personally have been asked to take items to WGs
that I've already presented them to repeatedly - even at the meeting
adjacent to a Last Call.
Okay, so maybe that was a botch. But surely you can find a quicker
and more effective way to remedy that botch than by whining about it
endlessly here? And if you couldn't figure out how to do that by
yourself, why couldn't you ask some people with more experience
working in and/or with IESG?
(and did the AD really insist that you bring this up in a _face-to-
face_ WG meeting, or is that just how you and/or the WG chair chose
to interpret it?)
Why is this one botch evidence of such a fundamental problem with the
IETF process that it needs to be altered in a way that there's plenty
of reason to believe will work far worse than what we have?
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf