"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