1/ I believe that change would be factually incorrect
2/ I do not see that being factually correct about what happened says anything
about
the community opinion about any future IESG decision to change processes.
Scott
On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 9/17/13 11:27 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
I just posted the third version of the draft at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-proposed-standards-clarified-02
I would like to change "IESG" to "IETF" in five places:
Section 1:
"the IESG has evolved its review processes"
Section 2:
"IESG Reveiew of Proposed Standards"
"the IESG strengthened its review"
"last chance for the IESG to ensure the quality"
"cross-area technical review performed by the IESG"
The IETF as a whole, through directorate reviews, area reviews, doctor
reviews, *and* IESG reviews, has evolved, strengthened, ensured, etc., its
reviews.
Saying "the IESG" in these places implies precedent setting that I think
would be bad. If the IETF capitulated to the IESG changing the rules on its
own in the past, so be it, but I think it would be bad to indicate in a BCP
that we think it's OK for the IESG to do so unilaterally.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478