On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Ted Lemon
<ted(_dot_)lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
The most useful comment I've heard on this thread is that it makes sense
to credit the working group chairs as well as the authors of a document in
the document at the same level of emphasis. And possibly the ADs as well.
I don't know if this would make a difference, but it's interesting, and
might be worth the experiment.
But really, the main thing to say about this conversation is that it's a
classic example of why the AD's job is so time consuming. We have to
monitor these conversations, because otherwise we aren't doing the part of
our job that involves listening to the IETF. Having long bikeshed
discussions about the woeful brokenness of the AD's job over and over again
without any action proposed is expensive.
Most of what's been discussed here has been discussed by the ADs during
the recent IESG retreat, and substantial action was taken as a result of
the discussion at that retreat. It might be interesting to see if any of
what we discussed actually changes anything.
[MB] Can you clue us in as to what "substantial action" has been taken?
[/MB]