[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IONs & discuss criteria

2008-03-06 16:07:38
"Ted" == Ted Hardie <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:

    Ted> At 1:43 PM -0800 3/6/08, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> >
    >> 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.

    Ted> I can think of no stronger statement of why the discuss criteria
    Ted> document should be a community statement that represents the
    Ted> agreement of the IETF as a whole than that above.  If the IESG
    Ted> can have an "evolving interpretation" of the criteria, then the
    Ted> community needs to know it and agree to the interpretation.

Ted, we have an evolving interpretation of every document we've ever
written--BCPs, standards, IONs, webpages, email messages,
presentations.  I don't mean that the iesg should be able to interpret
the discuss criteria document in a manner inconsistent with the text.
however there are a lot of ways to read the text.

Making it a BCP will make the interpretation problem worse not better.
IETF mailing list

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