ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-14 17:01:24
It seems to me that if it is really a discussion, then there may be many possible things which could resolve it, and the AD raising the question may not know exactly what is feasible to clear it. Otherwise it is a demand, not a discussions. And in my experience while ADs can be pushy (like the rest of us), they are generally prepared to have discussion.

Thus, I find your second item below to be inappropriate.

At the same time, discussions do have to be resolvable. If there is no way to address it, then it is not a discuss. But "required to clar" is the wrong picture as far as I can tell.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/14/2013 5:12 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
I am *not* suggesting getting rid of it.

I *am* suggesting that it needs to be used only where necessary, and
that 'necessary' ought to be clearly proved by:

     - citing the specific DISCUSS criteria involved

     - providing explicit information on what would
     be required to clear the DISCUSS