RE: Out of the box proposal

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>]

I would argue we don't need the state.

What should happen with such documents is that they go (quickly) back to the working group to be fixed.

If the document is important, the WG will fix it. If it is not, it will die.

My general position remains that the IESG is a review body, not a fixing body. Either it agrees the document is acceptable, or it is not. 

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:14 PM
> To: Bernard Aboba; lisa.dusseault at gmail.com; 
> eburger at standardstrack.com
> Cc: wgchairs at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Out of the box proposal
> 
> At 07:08 PM 5/15/2009, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> >...
> >Whether that outcome is satisfactory depends on one's view on what 
> >should be done with low quality documents.  Should they be 
> "improved" 
> >or do we take a more darwinian view?
> >
> >Mike O'Dell was a classic darwinist, often arguing that "improving" 
> >atrocious documents to mediocrity was a dis-service to the community.
> 
> "Atrocious"
> 
> Is it a new I-D Tracker State, or additional AD Evaluation option?
> 
> At least the presence of alternative like "Atrocious" would 
> recognize (what I suspect is) a fairly wide range of document 
> qualities that the IESG ends-up reviewing.
> 
> Al
> 
>