Re: [yam] Proposed changes to review template

[Dave CROCKER <dhc at dcrocker.net>]

Chris Newman wrote:
> Based on the IESG evaluation record of 
> draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00, I believe the questions we 
> asked the IESG were too terse and thus were not understood by the IESG 
> and did not accomplish our charter's stated goal for the pre-review.
>
>
> I propose the latter two questions be expanded for future templates as 
> follows:


Chris,

We asked some reasonable questions of the IESG.  We've had two iterations 
attempting to get answers.  What we have received back is:

   1.  No effort to answer those questions

   2.  An affirmative statement that the IESG does not want to make agreements 
through these pore-evaluations, now, that will constrain its actions when the 
revised specifications are put forward

   3.  Direction that we start over with a different document

We have absolutely no indication that any revision to our questions or 
methodology will produce differential results.

By my reading of "experimental results", we have obtained more than enough data 
to assess this experiment.

"Pre-evaluation" has not worked.

We should either simply do the direct spec revision to the document the IESG 
requested or we should shut down.

If anyone disagrees with the facts or their implications that I've listed, 
please carefully explain my errors.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net