[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 14:45:10
"Ted" == Ted Hardie <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:

    Ted> I respect your work, but I believe the IESG has recently
    Ted> relaxed the vigilance it once held toward adherence to these criteria.
    Ted> I have seen at least two recent discusses that amounted to
    Ted> "go satisfy that guy" and several cut and paste external reviews where
    Ted> it was blindingly obvious the AD had not even looked at the
    Ted> most recent version of the text.  I have also seen quite a few
    Ted> that amount to "Disagreement with informed working group
    Ted> decisions" where the AD is putting their preferences over
    Ted> any real acknowledgement that a working group has considered
    Ted> the issues.
    Ted> The only way I know of to make sure the IESG restores
    Ted> the focus on this issue (which took a lot of our energy several years
    Ted> ago) is to make it binding on the IESG.   I hope that you, personally,
    Ted> agree that it should be community-based and binding on the IESG
    Ted> and that we are simply discussing the mechanism by which that
    Ted> occurs.  If you do not agree that it should be binding on the IESG
    Ted> and a consensus statement of the community, I am interested to know
    Ted> why.
    Ted> Ted Hardie

If someone believes that a discuss is inappropriate, I recommend that
they start both by contacting the discussing AD *and* the shepherding

I know that I would treat a request to rethink whether a discuss I
held was consistent with the discuss criteria document from another
IESG member very seriously.  I would treat such a request from an
author seriously, although not as seriously as from another IESG
member.  There are a number of reasons for this.  The authors are
often much more emotionally involved in a document than ADs.  The ADs
are likely more familiar with the discuss criteria than the author and
are definitely more familiar with the current interpretation of the
discuss criteria.  No matter how frustrating it is, it's simply true
that procedures like the discuss criteria are subject to
interpretation, and the IESG is going to have an evolving
interpretation of any such procedural document.

I think it is reasonable for an author to expect to get a response
back from an shepherding AD that either they think the discuss is
reasonable, or they think it is unreasonable.

IETF mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>