Stringency (RE: 12 problems)

john.loughney at john.loughney at
Thu Jan 16 06:22:40 CET 2003

Hi Harald,

> > 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 
> fashion.

You could be correct, but this might be a fine line - I think many folks
have a perception that the IESG review is more stringent than in the past
and this causes some of the difference of opinions ...

> 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....

I interpreted the comments in Atlanta to be that the IESG should do more
to keep OTHER PEOPLE'S bad ideas out, but to be very speedy when it comes
to my documents.  However, we all know you can't have it both ways.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list