Brian E Carpenter wrote:
"send publication request to secretariat" is more attractive
than spamming ADs.
You probably need to understand what happens when someone
does that.
Yes, I haven't tested it yet.
The Secretariat simply forwards the note to the IESG.
Don't they also set the "pubreq" bit in the I-D tracker ?
After a while, the IESG Chair will (with luck) have handled
everything that looks urgent, and will take a glance at
draft-smith-my-new-idea and make an uninformed guess that it
fits the smurf Area.
Doesn't sound good, I thought it would hit a "tracker exception"
or something after a while (if nobody feels like looking at it).
The IESG Chair will send a note to one or both smurf ADs
saying "Can you have a look at this?".
The Chair could appoint...
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IesgWhips
...for stuff stuck in procedural corners. Getting the "pubreq"
flag is important, it won't go away unless the author gives up,
or it's transformed to "do not publish" / "RFC published".
then the process proposed by draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines
actually starts - probably with another wait until one of
those ADs has handled everything that looks urgent.
But without the "AD shopping" mentioned in the draft, what I
called "AD spamming": One of the two ADs has to do something
visible in the I-D tracker, like enter "revised ID needed" or
start a last call. Or note it as "dead", or if that's allowed
maybe "demote" it to "AD is watching" - when the authors agree.
So far I thought that authors create this "pubreq" flag, for
individual I-Ds, or otherwise the WG Chairs representing some
consensus of their WG.
With the proposed procedure it's apparently the IESG creating
any "pubreq" flag, and you can block this important step in a
rather obscure (= invisible in the tracker) procedure, roughly
reflecting "nobody feels like caring about the I-D".
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf