So, you arguing that all DISCUSSes by ADs are indeed justified and necessary.
It is great to hear that our leadership is completely unbiased with regard to
technology, does not follow their own (or a company) agenda, misjudge their
expertise in a certain area, showed long delays in responding, etc.
As a document author I remember a couple of cases where certain ADs showed
"interesting" behavior.
As Jari said at the plenary it is difficult to talk about this topic without
going into specific cases but on the other hand we don't want to upset
individuals either.
Hence, the story is difficult.
My suggestion: Talk to the Nomcom if you think that certain ADs treated you in
an unfair way.
Ciao
Hannes
On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous "no objection" or missing ballot responses.
Secondly, the drafts are de facto reviewed by review teams
these days (gen-art, security area, etc.). This serves to alert
the ADs if a draft really needs careful review. The workload is
more reasonable than it used to be.
Thirdly, when I was in the IESG, I was surprised quite often by
*glaring* errors that had not been picked up before. Somebody has
to be responsible for catching these, and today it's the IESG.
Fourthly, because of the exact same discussion that Glen raised in
plenary, the IESG defined and published its criteria for DISCUSS
several years ago. Sometimes there are inappropriate DISCUSSes
and those need to be pointed out when they happen.
I hear the IESG members responding exactly right to this question.
--
Regards
Brian Carpenter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf