Hi Cullen,
On 05/14/2013 02:58 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
I would like to see the whole IESG say they agree with the Discuss Criteria
document and will stay within that (or change it if they disagree).
That I'm pretty sure is the case. When I started as a new AD
one of the first things I did was put on stupid discuss that
didn't meet the discuss criteria, at which I was very quickly,
but nicely, pointed, (thanks Robert:-), so I learned that
lesson early.
I've seen it happen a fair few times since, with new and not
so new ADs - the IESG as a whole do beat one another up with
the discuss criteria, and not that infrequently. (There was
mail making exactly this point today for example.)
If it helps, I personally think the discuss-criteria are very
good, and work well and I do my best to follow 'em. (Though
since most of my discusses are security related that's maybe
easier for me than for ADs in other areas.)
The cross area review teams might want to also provide comments within this
context.
No harm. But all cross-area reviews are explicitly adopted by
an AD before becoming discuss points. And the IESG also beat
one another up if an AD posts a discuss that only says "see review
foo" without saying more, so all discusses are the AD's and need
to be argued by that AD. Again, it doesn't happen every week
that we beat up an AD for that, but maybe a few times a year.
On 05/14/2013 05:34 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
the rule about not coming up with new DISCUSSes:
I've not found that a real problem. When its happened that we
did turn up something bigger than we thought after the telechat
(and updating your discuss points before or during the telechat
is considered fair game) then I think the authors/chairs have
always also agreed that stuff needed to be done.
Cheers,
S.