Fred Baker (fred) <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Also, in my opinion, IESG review that raises a certain number of issues
should not result in the document sitting in the IESG's queue for a
few months while the authors go back and forth with the AD or the
GEN-ART reviewer pounding the document into someone's idea of "shape"
without working group involvement. I personally would prefer that
simple matters get sorted out between the ADs and the author, but
complex changes or additional content requested by the AD should
result in the document being sent back to the working group.
This is pretty much the call of Working Group Chairs, so perhaps you
should ask WGCs what they intend to do -- I don't think an IETF-wide
policy would work well here.
Note also that when this is done, it seems to reinforce the attitude
that "We should humor the IESG!"
(Even so, I personally prefer to hear about such changes. ;^)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>