Nelson, David wrote:
Good issues are being raised. Certainly there needs to be openness
about any substantive changes in drafts during the IESG review process.
I'm not enamored of the idea of yet more mailing lists to subscribe to,
however. Why can't we rely on the PROTO Shepherds to do the right thing
with regard to posting DISCUSS issues to the WG mailing list and
collecting WG feedback into the IESG review? After all, we rely on the
WG Chairs to do the right thing in declaring consensus on WGLC prior to
submitting the documents to the IESG with a request for publication.
WG formation is much like negotiating a contract. It should be done among the
principals, not just their representatives.
One of the very big benefits of this will be the creation of a very clear and
public record of community interest and perspective.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf