And your bottom line is exactly what te rules say, what I said, what Ted
said, and what Joe agreed is reasonable. It also matchesthe practice I
have seen. Even the discuss that I had a lot of arguments with did
include proposals for paths forward. Sometimes they were ard to
understand. That's probably inevitable with all these opinionated
humans doing this.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/14/2013 7:15 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/14/2013 3:46 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
To be fair, for what it's worth as a WG chair I've had the latter
experience at least as often as the former in the use of DISCUSS, and
I've observed some DISCUSSes cleared without any change at all to the
document in question.
We suffer a continuing logic error in the IETF. We use "sometimes it
happens the other way" as if that negates the existence and problem
cause by what is being criticized.
So, yeah, of course a Discuss /sometimes/ causes a small delay with no
changes. /Sometimes/ ADs use the sledgehammer of the Discuss to ask for
a bit of conversation. That's all irrelevant.
What's relevant is the nature of the mechanisms, its capability, and the
cost it can and does impose on authors and the working group.
When a serious defect is identified, it's entirely worth the cost.
When it isn't, it isn't.
In all cases, the person imposing the cost has an obligation to
facilitate closing it, including making clear the criteria for closing
it. It is unreasonable to have those who must do the work to clear it
play a guessing game.