On 5/14/2013 3:12 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 6:00 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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.
Exactly right. It would actually be pretty presumptuous for an AD
to say what is required to clear the DISCUSS. That would tend to
imply that the DISCUSS is a directive, not an invitation to, well,
discuss.
It isn't an 'invitation'. It's an exercise in political authority by
blocking progress of the document.
We came up with the term "Discuss" when I was an AD because, at the
time, the IESG had little authority and wanted to encourage a
constructive tone; we didn't want to sound like we were saying 'no'.
And of course, that's still everyone's preference. But the reality is
that the imposition of the Discuss is an assertion that changes are
being required.
For reference, that milder uses of Discuss, which is something akin to
"I'd like something clarified" does not require a Discuss. It requires
a query to the working group and some dialogue.
Of course we have to _try_ to say what we think would
clear the discuss, but I don't think we can go beyond that; it's
virtually impossible for us to have complete information.
That makes no sense. The AD is the one choosing to block progress. It
will be the AD who decides to clear the discuss.
How can it be reasonable for the AD to provide no basis for knowing what
it will take to get the AD to do this?
I suspect you are confusing 'what' with 'how'. The issue is not one of
imposing the details of the engineering or documentation changes that
are being demanded by the AD, but of the criteria that will be applied
in evaluated the adequacy of the changes. Othrwise, the authors have to
play a guessing game, trying to figure out what will please the AD well
enough to clear the Discuss.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net