Sam Hartman wrote:
"Scott" == Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> writes:
Scott> re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
Scott> I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by
Scott> the IESG it should reduce the number of what appears to be
Scott> blocking actions by ADs
Scott> but I did not see any enforcement mechanism - i.e. if an AD
Scott> enters a DISCUSS over a section 3.2 reason how does the
Scott> IESG tell that AD to back off? It seems like the alternate
Scott> voting process is not needed to have the IESG look at a
Scott> DISCUSS comments and reach a consensus that it is not (or
Scott> is) a legit DISCUSS area
how about just waiting to see if we have a problem before designing
new process?
It seems likely that if there is internal conflict within the IESG,
the IESG will find a way to resolve that conflict. If you don't feel
that you can leave these sorts of details to the IESG, then you
shouldn't be trusting the IESG at all. That's a valid position, but
it is not resolved by creating enforcement mechanisms.
In the end a lot of this comes down to judgement calls, and these
guidelines help to set expectations for those calls. If someone
sends in a DISCUSS and gets back "Really?" from a couple of other ADs,
the judgement may rapidly swing the other way. I'd say the IESG is
trying quite hard these days to clear DISCUSS ballots quickly if
possible, and there are quite a few that vanish before or during the
telechat.
Also, by putting these guidelines into public view, we will hopefully
get community feedback on marginal DISCUSSes, since they are visible
in the tracker.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf