I want to address one point that SM made:
"Additionally, the experiment will only require issues raised
during these three stages to be addressed if they meet the
IESG's Discuss criteria."
Does this mean that a document does not have to represent consensus?
This bothered me too: by limiting what last call comments we address,
aren't we limiting the consensus process? Last call (which includes
directorate and review team reviews) often results in many comments
that will make the document better, but that wouldn't be likely
candidates for DISCUSS positons in IESG Evaluation. Isn't it a bad
idea to say, outright, "Oh, well, you don't have to pay attention to
those."? GenART reviews, in particular, are designed to be very
detailed and to call out not just substantive issues, but editorial
ones. Aren't we showing disrespect to reviewers who spend a lot of
time on a document if we then say, "Yeah, thanks, but we're going to
ignore those."?
But here's the thing: Judgment.
I noted in another conversation recently that we aren't just automata
who mechanically handle process. And what we're talking about here
isn't a situation where the responsible AD will look at each comment
as if putting it on a scale, and will say, "Doesn't meet DISCUSS
criteria; toss it."
What we have is a case where working group chairs have brought the
document forward ans said, "The working group has consensus on this
document. Maybe the last of the 't's are not crossed and there's
still an 'i' or two un-dotted, but there's broad consensus in the WG
and running code that shows it's solid, and we're ready for a
fast-track last call." After that, the community and the IESG get to
comment. ADs can only block progress on a document (essentially going
against WG consensus) with DISCUSS positions, and those positions need
to meet the DISCUSS criteria. This is, the document is saying, the
case also with last call comments: in order to go against the WG's
consensus, there needs to be some strength to the argument.
In fact, this document isn't saying anything different to what can
already happen: if the document's authors, shepherd, and responsible
AD all say, "That batch of last call comments don't really matter,"
they can leave those comments un-addressed. And if another AD
disagrees with that assessment, she can put a DISCUSS position on,
saying that important last call comments were not addressed, the
document does not appear to have rough consensus, etc.
Also, in fact, most document authors are pleased to get comments that
improve the document, and will *not* ignore comments just to save a
few days in the process. ADs regularly put many non-blocking comments
on documents, ones that do not meet DISCUSS criteria, and document
authors are usually happy to consider them, to discuss them, and to
make changes to the document to address them when that's the right
thing to do.
I'll also note that the quote above from the document doesn't say or
imply that non-DISCUSS-worthy last call comments will never be
addressed -- only that they are not required to be addressed before
the document goes to the IESG. If the goal is to run things in
parallel, it would be entirely reasonable for people to say, "This
batch of comments are things we can work on while the IESG is
evaluating the document." Again, judgment.
I'm really not worried about that aspect of this proposal. Whatever
faults I think this has, I do not think it will result in Proposed
Standard documents with any less consensus than we have now.
Barry