Shifting sands [Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area]

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

Bill,

Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, john.loughney at nokia.com wrote:
>
> > If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
> > would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
> > would be one way to reduce this could be one solution. 
>
>
> Why do you think this would make any difference in practice?  chances
> are that an AD-pair would agree to hold a DISCUSS if either felt that an
> issue should block publication.

As I have had to remind people of before, DISCUSSes aren't intended to
"block" publication - they are intended to start a discussion with the
authors and WG about how to resolve an issue. If the IESG actually wants
to block a document, it's more explicit and relatively rare.

However, you're correct - an Area DISCUSS would likely be the OR
of the two AD's opinions. And it's impractical, because there is generally
less than a week between a document appearing on the agenda and the moment
when the AD needs to enter a ballot.

> > From my point of view, a far greater source of delay is the
> extraordinarily rapid change in the standards applied to documents by
> the IESG; it seems that, if your document editor is very busy, by the
> time a document is reworked to address one set of editorial standards, a
> new requirement (leading to a new blocking DISCUSS) is likely to appear.

Well, that is why we published draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00
which includes among the non-criteria for a DISCUSS:

   o  Pedantic corrections to non-normative text.  ...
   o  Stylistic issues of any kind.  ...
   o  There is recent work or additional information that might be added
      to the document.  ...
   o  New issues with unchanged text in documents previously reviewed by
      the AD in question. ...
> seems like we could avoid this sort of logrolling by judging a document
> based on the rules published and in force at the time it was submitted
> to the IESG.

They aren't rules, they're guidelines, in general. However, I largely
agree with you - another reason for the above draft. But there are
surely exceptions (e.g. new IPR rules, a newly discovered security threat)
where currency is essential.

   Brian


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