Brian, et al.,
On 5/14/2013 1:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think this exchange between Cullen and Ted says it all, except
for one tweak: the IESG is allowed, even encouraged, to apply common
sense when considering the DISCUSS criteria. They are guidance,
not rules.
Also, everybody needs to take the word "discuss" literally. An
entirely possible outcome is that after discussion, the AD says
"Oh. You're correct. Pretend I never spoke!". Or the author says
"Oh. You're correct. We'll change it." Either outcome is good.
The trouble with this assumption is the IESG review process.
COMMENTS are appropriate for feedback, but the IESG review process is
too often considered an *opportunity* for the IESG to "make the document
better", or (in some case) have an opportunity for their input.
As important as the DISCUSS criteria are, there are NON-DISCUSS criteria
that ought to be more carefully followed - including the point that
disagreements with the WG or clarifications are not justification for
DISCUSS.
Ted pointed out that DISCUSS doesn't mean the IESG doesn't like a
document - agreed, but it *does* hold up a document until the IESG
member clears it.
That can - has - and is - being used as leverage to force changes to
documents that are sometimes clearly out of scope (e.g., listed as
NON-DISCUSS).
DISCUSS is a heavyweight mechanism that holds up document resolution; it
should be used only where absolutely appropriate. If the IESG wants to
have a "discussion" with the authors, they are welcome to participate in
the WGs or IETF LC, or to contact them out of band.
Joe