Re: "straightforward, reasonable, and fair"

On Fri, 6 May 2005, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > What is the context of technical astuteness?  How do you compare
> > people with different technical focuses?  You can't.
> Giving ADs a private veto (private in the sense of not discussed in
> public) seems to compare technical astuteness and assign more weight to
> ADs.  I suggest public discussion avoids giving ADs' technical
> astuteness undue weight.
>
> > If an AD raises an issue about a document (from area X) that it
> > conflicts or causes serious problems (from the perspective of area Y),
> > how do you ensure that the more technically astute people
> > (particularly on Y but also a bit on X) participate in the discussion?
> By making the discussion public...
[...]

There is nothing to prevent making such discussions public.  Many 
groups already do so so; the comments are already recorded in a public 
database, and when the WG (chair or document editor) follows up on 
those, e.g., by discussing the Discuss, it can be done Cc'ing the 
mailing list.
Or do you have the problem that the discussion is held on the WG list 
(and not on a wider forum), and for individual submissions, probably 
in private? (individual submissions are problematic in this sense, but 
they _are_ individual..)
So I don't see what problem you're seeing.  To me, a Discuss is a flag 
an AD can raise "I think there may be a serious issue here, and we 
need to discuss it in case you disagree".
In principle, I consider that reasonable given the responsibily of the 
IESG for technical quality.
However, sometimes this has some issues.  Specifically, sometimes ADs 
seem to be very busy and do not have time to respond to attempts at 
initiating dialogue or the round-trip time between messages is high. 
(Also, there are cases where the WG drops the ball for months, and 
then gets back later -- by then the AD has probably already forgotten 
what (s)he said and has to re-read parts of the spec.)  This is a 
particular problem if the WG thinks AD's issue is not really relevant 
or is flat out wrong; it may take a while to convince the AD (though 
the responsible AD may be able to help in these scenarios).
Maybe _this_ is something where we should consider how to increase the 
timeliness and effectiveness of the dialogue.
--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf