Re: Call for review of proposed IESG Statement on Examples

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Tuesday, September 23, 2008 2:26 PM -0400 Dave CROCKER 
<dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> > In the SMTP case there where never any communication with me
> > in the loop  about my discuss position until after the appeal
> > has been submitted.  From the point we actually had any
> >  discussion it didn't take that long.  But clearly a
> > communication problem that involved several parties.
>
> This suggests a process failure of some sort.  Either in the
> particulars of this case or in the basic way a Discuss is
> developed, pursued and resolved.  My impression is the latter.

Addressing this one issue only, it was the result of a 
misunderstanding about the meaning and interpretation of a 
Discuss -- whether it was intended as a temporary placeholder, 
was intended for internal discussion within IESG, required an 
immediate response from the author or others, was covered by a 
discussion with other IESG members about the same topic, etc. 
In my personal opinion, it would be a much better use of IESG 
and community time to clarify and differentiate the various 
meanings of "Discuss" and how the community is expected to 
respond to each type, that it is to try to fine-tune examples. 
But apparently the IESG does not agree -- I hope not because, 
for some incomprehensible-to-me reason, they prefer the 
obscurity.

> This makes it worth considering how things could be changed to
> make concerns, such as you had, easier and less painful to
> resolve.

Yep

    john

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