Hi Loa,
I agree with you discussions are our friend. I was focusing on
processing time, not document quality. No dought if you stay longer
time you will get better quality, but what about progress. So I mean
call for discussions is for a time limit, as if no discussion happends
then the call matures and the holding of the work stops as well. If
DISCUSS is continue I never like to close it as long as it is
continuous, but not delayed. In practice I never seen that DISCUSS of
ADs with the WGs are having much continuous communication, it is delay
with no time schedule.
99,9% of the DISCUSSES improve our documents or the understanding
of them.
I know that DISCUSSES with WGs improves our documents (don't forget
that WGs are following milestones and WGLC periods), but DISCUSSES
that have no time limit makes more delays. I hope we see similar times
of WG into the IESG, so the communication can improve the processing
time.
AB
On 5/16/13, Loa Andersson <loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu> wrote:
On 2013-05-16 14:38, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Discussions should have a time limit (can be one week),
I totally disagree, DISCUSSES are our friends, they need to be
discussed until we have rough consensus; it seems to be a
manifestly bad idea to draw a deadline after seven days, if
someone come up with a satisfactory solution on the eighth.
99,9% of the DISCUSSES improve our documents or the understanding
of them.
/Loa
like we have
in meetings (2hours), if there is time we can know when things are
needed to respond to, I usually ignore when there is no milestones or
planing-time. Does IESG have milestones for documents
processing/discussions?
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_at_)mail01(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com
Senior MPLS Expert loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64