Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
Joe> delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe> feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe> than technical review).
Sam:
I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;)
Seriously, I think most people would be really annoyed if I
wrote up a discuss of the form "this sucks for foo reason;
please coordinate with bar wg until they are happy then I'll
clear." They would be even more unhappy if I wrote up the more
realistic "please take this to bar wg and when they are happy
I'll re review."
Actually, I would consider a diplomatically-worded version of
the former very useful. The latter is the problem - it lacks
the reason the WG is being added as a hurdle.
IMO, anytime a doc is held-up via Discuss, the reason for the
discuss
That is visible in the tracker.
and the criteria under which it can be cleared should
both be required.
The IESG plans to publish a draft about what are, and are
not, valid criteria for a DISCUSS.
I fully agree with Joe, that kind of direct and concrete feedback
would at least make me much happier than what we have today, when
I have to find out myself whether there were any discuss comments,
who made them, hopefully to some degree understand what the issues
were about, and make qualified guesses on what I (as chair or
author) am expected to do to address them.
The theory is that WG Chairs and authors *should* be copied on
the DISCUSS comments, since otherwise they can never be resolved.
However, we lack some automation, so it does still depend on the ADs
generating email.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf