+1 to what Jari says below.
From my perspective, the important things to keep in mind:
1) Discuss criteria should be principles, not rigid rules. The details
of the issue at hand always matter, and it will sometimes come down to
judgement calls where reasonable individuals just might disagree. And
if we try to replace judgement with rigid, overly specified rules, we
surely won't like the results. i.e, the process requires we do X, when
X is really a bad outcome overall.
2) There will always be judgement calls, where an AD and an author (or
WG) don't necessarily agree. Fine tuning the rules won't fix that. By
default, when there is disagreement, the presumption needs to be the
AD could be right and needs to be convinced. That is the essence of
what a DISCUSS is intended to be. If the dialog between author/WG/AD
is not progressing, bring in someone else. I.e., the way to overrule a
"stubborn" AD is to convince other ADs (and/or WG members) to weigh in
based on the merits. If an author/WG can't do that, that says
something...
Thomas
Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> writes:
I feel that the discussion is stuck on the different perceptions on
whether an AD's actions are either blocking reasonable progress, or
an essential correction to a mistake that went undetected.
I'd like to make a couple of observations. First of all, we at the
IESG process 10-25 documents every second week, and several points
(comment or discuss) are raised for each one. Given that both
working groups and the IESG consist of humans, I'm guessing that
none of us are making perfect decisions all the time. While the
Discuss Criteria document is very useful, I'd warn against trying to
codify the proper behaviour too much. It would be very difficult,
and ultimately it comes down to making a call on whether an issue is
really crucial for the Internet or not.
I feel that the discussion and pressure from other ADs and authors
and the rest of the working group is a more useful avenue to ensure
that we really are fixing the necessary bugs and only those. And I
know you are doing that - lets make sure we keep doing it. "If you
see something, say something". It is everyone's responsibility to
try to do the right thing, and if you feel it is not happening, say
so. I think the current IESG has a very good mood for receiving
feedback and acting on it. (Speaking as the longest serving member
in the current IESG, who frequently gets shown to be wrong by other
ADs or WG folk.)
In addition, as discussed separately, moving more of the issue
resolution to the open and to the WG is a good thing.
Jari