Re: IESG voting procedures

Thanks for that info.  That does make me feel a bit better.

Keith

On Aug 15, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> Hi Keith,
>  
> Ø  The only other formal level of review we have are the Last Call comments 
> which, given the volume of documents that get Last Called, amounts to a 
> fairly small and random chance that somebody outside the WG will happen to 
> notice the proposed document action and give the document a thorough review.
>  
> I do not know whether to call these ‘formal’ but currently all documents that 
> go to Last Call also undergo three expert reviews – Gen-ART, Sec-DIR and 
> OPS-DIR. According to the scope of the documents a few more expert reviews 
> may be called as required by the WG, shepherd or AD – APPS-Dir, TSV-Dir, 
> MIB-Doctors, DNS-Dir, etc.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Dan
>  
>  
>  
> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 4:02 AM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk; IETF
> Subject: Re: IESG voting procedures
>  
>  
> On Aug 14, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>
> Convincing the entire IESG is a very high barrier, especially when
> typically, most of the IESG just wants the issue to go away.    It might
> happen for a significant architectural issue, perhaps, but not for an
> area-specific technical flaw.
>
> Here's the point: if an AD can't get at least one or two other ADs to
> read the document and agree to join in the blocking, then that AD MUST
> NOT be allowed to block the document.  That's even the case if the AD
> thinks she's found a serious flaw.  Because if, out of 14 others in
> the IESG, not ONE other is willing to read the document, understand
> the issue, and agree on it.
>  
> That's also how I interpret the rules.  I just don't think that this is 
> sufficient review.  I think that in practice it makes IESG more-or-less a 
> rubber stamp for any issue that isn't easily fixed with small and often 
> inconsequential changes to the document text.
>  
> The problem is, the ADs are very busy people, and their expertise has to 
> cover a wide range of topics, so there will be few IESG members who can 
> really understand a subtle issue.   Document reviews outside of one's subject 
> area are very difficult and require considerable focus.   GIven that, even if 
> only one AD catches a flaw in a document, there's a good chance (though not a 
> certainty of course) that it's something that warrants more attention.   It's 
> far more likely that no ADs will find the flaw because nobody really took the 
> time to read the document thoroughly and to understand its implications of 
> the document outside of the narrow subject area of the working group.
>  
> I understand (and agree with) the sentiment that, ultimately, one or two 
> people shouldn't be able to block a document.  Nor do I want documents held 
> up for trivialities as, unfortunately, sometimes happens.  But I've seen many 
> cases where working groups failed to do an adequate level of review outside 
> of their narrow areas of concern, and it appears that IESG's current rules 
> and workload make it difficult for problems to get fixed after a document 
> leaves the WG.   
>  
> (and people keep arguing to remove steps from our process so that there will 
> be even less review after a document has progressed to Proposed...)
>  
> The only other formal level of review we have are the Last Call comments 
> which, given the volume of documents that get Last Called, amounts to a 
> fairly small and random chance that somebody outside the WG will happen to 
> notice the proposed document action and give the document a thorough review.
>  
> To put the question another way:  What level of formal technical review, 
> outside of a WG, best serves IETF's goals? 
>  
> Keith
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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