A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"

[john.loughney@nokia.com]

Hi Pete,

Text snipped:

> One of the clear=20
> messages you are hearing is "No surprises LATE IN THE PROCESS". I=20
> think most folks would be happy with more IESG input if it happened=20
> during protocol development. What I think gets people's knickers in a=20
> twist (as James has mentioned) is that in most instances, the only=20
> significant input a WG gets from the IESG is at the end of its=20
> lifetime. Making course corrections during the process due to IESG=20
> input is much less disruptive and can be easily incorporated into the=20
> work. If WGs were getting that kind of input all along, Last Call and=20
> IESG review *would* be a rubber stamp for all intents and purposes:=20
> Except for the "Holy crap! How could we have missed that?!?"=20
> occurrences (which will occasionally happen), most of the issues=20
> would have been addressed by the WG during development.

I agree completely.  Early input and steering with less late suprises
would be a good thing.

John