Re: Myths of the IESG: Reading documents is the problem

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> What is especially problematic is when the working group has late-stage 
> process and project management difficulties, leading to the obvious 
> question of what happened in the earlier stage?
>
> Having a non-cognizant AD press late-stage issues leads to the question 
> of why they did not pay attention earlier?  If the topic is important 
> enough for them to delay the wg output now, why was it not important 
> enough earlier?  

It seems to me that the *primary* responsibility for ensuring that
the WG considers everything it should consider, at an early enough
stage, lies with the WG Chair(s).

Certainly, the AD has an oversight and mentoring role here,
especially for first-time WG Chairs, but your obvious question
should be directed first to the WG Chair(s) and only second to
the ADs.

I don't mean the ADs have no duties in this area - but they
can't be everywhere at once and read every email.

    Brian



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf