Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was followed
and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it
was successfully reviewed by the Gen-ART. If it wasn't then this
particular process should be reviewed and take actions accordingly (e.g.
returning the document to the wg).
But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
in our process because that means that the document had a serious
problem and we didn't spot it in the process or an IESG member is using
its power to change a document according to its personal beliefs.
Just a thought,
as
On 4/11/13 2:54 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review,
I've noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its
documented and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026):
The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for
the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in
addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity
of the specification is consistent with that expected for the
maturity level to which the specification is recommended.
Although I appreciate that IESG members are often overloaded, and the
IESG Review step is often the first time many see these documents, I
believe they should be expected to more clearly differentiate their
"IESG Review" (based on the above criteria) - and its accompanying
Position ballot, with their personal review.
My concern is that by conflating their IESG position with their personal
review, the document process is inappropriately delayed and that
documents are modified to appease a small community that does not
justify its position as representative.
How do others feel about this?
Joe