--On Friday, February 07, 2014 08:21 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
For documents from working groups or individuals, it is
typical -- and
generally considered to be required -- to have public review
proceed in
a manner that fully responds to concerns that are posted.
This can be a
laborious and even frustrating process, but the community
considers it
an important validation process for work carrying the IETF
impimatur.
...
Simply put, comments often are entirely ignored, or receive at
most a basic response, with no followup.
...
This sequence is substantially more work than what has
typically been
done.
It's worth it.
For whatever it is worth, I'm in complete agreement with Dave's
problem description and plan of action. We might disagree (or
not) about two things:
(1) I am, generally and in this case, opposed to more rigid
rules. I think that willingness and effectiveness at engagement
with the community are important attributes for anyone on the
IESG, IAB, or even IAOC and that those who behave as if such
engagement and responsiveness are not important should be the
subject of discussion with the Nomcom or, if necessary,
demonstrations that the recall procedure is really workable. I
note that, if rigid rules were made, the community's recourse if
they are disregarded is exactly the same: discussions with the
Nomcom or recalls. (Of course, appeals about specific actions
are possible in either case.)
(2) It seems to me that applying the review process Dave
suggests to individual submissions of non-standards track
documents could help clarify the appropriate uses of that
process just by making the burdens on the IESG and community of
AD sponsorship more clear to all involved.
best,
john