--On Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:26 PM -0400 Dave CROCKER
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
In the SMTP case there where never any communication with me
in the loop about my discuss position until after the appeal
has been submitted. From the point we actually had any
discussion it didn't take that long. But clearly a
communication problem that involved several parties.
This suggests a process failure of some sort. Either in the
particulars of this case or in the basic way a Discuss is
developed, pursued and resolved. My impression is the latter.
Addressing this one issue only, it was the result of a
misunderstanding about the meaning and interpretation of a
Discuss -- whether it was intended as a temporary placeholder,
was intended for internal discussion within IESG, required an
immediate response from the author or others, was covered by a
discussion with other IESG members about the same topic, etc.
In my personal opinion, it would be a much better use of IESG
and community time to clarify and differentiate the various
meanings of "Discuss" and how the community is expected to
respond to each type, that it is to try to fine-tune examples.
But apparently the IESG does not agree -- I hope not because,
for some incomprehensible-to-me reason, they prefer the
obscurity.
This makes it worth considering how things could be changed to
make concerns, such as you had, easier and less painful to
resolve.
Yep
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf