On May 1, 2013, at 1:59 PM 5/1/13, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
The blog nicely classes the problem as being too heavy-weight during final
stages. The quick discussion thread seems focused on adding a moment at which
the draft specification is considered 'baked'.
I think that's still too late.
...and not useful unless the diverse review and changes to the document take place much
earlier in the process to make sure the document is "baked." Declaring done
doesn't make it so.
Certainly it could be useful, but it's still very late in the process.
As Jari wrote, we often bury the heavy tail of the process in a limited
discussion among IESG and the document authors.
The tail is heavy in two different ways:
* significant review and modification takes place in IESG review, after the WG
and the IETF have declared the document done
* the burden of the review, managing the discussion, making sure any changes
fix the problem and don't break anything else often falls on the IESG and even
a single AD
When the write-up is done, the WG perception is that their work is done.
Some reviews that come after that, and specifically the IESG ones, are
considered as coming from trouble-makers.
We should change that perception.
I'm all in favor to keep the WG involved for any reviews: directorate,
IETF LC, IESG. Currently, we lack consistency wrt where the feedback is
sent (we're working on that). Now, I feel it's going to imply more
follow-up work for the ADs as the discussions might take longer. This is
where the document shepherd could help.
Regards, Benoit