Stringency (RE: 12 problems)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at
Wed Jan 15 22:34:17 CET 2003

--On onsdag, januar 15, 2003 20:37:06 +0200 john.loughney at wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>> It's certainly true the the IESG, aided and abetted by the IAB, has
>> been getting more stringent. Haven't noticed any wave of objection to
>> this in plenary sessions or any NomCom recalls as a result... but it
>> does seem that some open discussion would be appropriate.
> I had the feeling that in Yokohama a number of people got up to the mic
> to raise complaints about this.  Perhaps the message was lost, but I felt
> people were complaining about this.

I found it hard to gauge exactly what people were trying to tell us in 
Yokohama. A bit of it was "we want our lives to be easier, but you're 
making it harder" - but I got the impression that much of it was not about 
being more stringent, it was about having *different* opinions than what 
the WG had concluded, and not getting the dialogue going on in the proper 

Certainly Glen Zorn was angry about the outcome of the discussion on the 
ability to extend Diameter - he wanted less stringent rules - but there 
were people arguing on both sides of that particular fence.

In Atlanta, I certainly heard a good number of speakers that seemed to say 
that the IESG should be doing *more* to rein in bad ideas, keep 
architectural cleanliness and other such Good Things(tm). But everyone 
(including the IESG) agrees that doing this at the end of the process is 
not the easiest way to do it....


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list