doug at ewellic.org
Fri Sep 11 05:17:12 CEST 2009
Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
> In your role as Reviewer, you should be entertaining several points of
> view, allowing proponents for different options to make their case,
> and waiting to see what consensus emerges before evaluating the
> consensus of the list. The decisions should be the consensus of the
> list, not yours alone.
Without commenting on matters of civility or of stifling discussion, the
Reviewer -- the role, not Michael personally -- is expected to be an
expert as well as a referee, much more than (say) a WG chair. His or
her opinion on technical merits does count more than yours or mine.
However, Peter is certainly correct that others on the list should have
their opinions heard before a verdict is rendered.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages