Joe,
On 05/14/2013 09:45 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
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.
I had assumed that the term discuss-criteria meant [1] which includes
both. Not sure if that's also what you meant but worth adding the URL
here just in case some folks aren't familiar with it.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
DISCUSS is a heavyweight mechanism that holds up document resolution;
Agreed. But its a keystone in the current process. So getting
rid of it would be fairly revolutionary. (Not that I'm against
a bit of revolving now and then:-)
it
should be used only where absolutely appropriate.
s/absolutely appropriate/appropriate/ would be better.
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.
With our current tail-heavy process, and ~100 WGs that's impossible
in almost all cases.
On 05/14/2013 09:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote:>
On 5/14/2013 10:18 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
And a Discuss should be required to assert which criteria apply and how.
+1
That'd be -1 from me fwiw. There aren't enough disputes about that
to make it worthwhile and as I said the IESG is, believe it or not,
pretty good at policing itself in this respect.
S.