Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:Doingthe Right Things?)

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at
Mon Jun 9 15:36:40 CEST 2003

ok lets not use "blocking" lets use excessive review by a bar that is to
high for the level that the document is trying to achieve.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 8:12 PM
> To: Eric Rescorla
> Cc: Bound, Jim; Margaret Wasserman; 
> problem-statement at; Brian E Carpenter
> Subject: Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process 
> (was:Re:Doingthe Right Things?)
> >> rofl!  all the authority and fifteen cents will get you on 
> the subway 
> >> [0].
> > I'm not sure what you're saying here. The ADs have immense 
> > authority--the authority to block documents.
> nice hyperbole, but the fact is no one blocks documents, we 
> point out what we think are problems and ask to discuss them 
> to either find out we have misunderstood or, should the 
> problem be real, actually get the problem addressed.  this is 
> the same 'authority' the author, editor, wg chair, or 
> reviewer has.  big whoopie doo.
> the question is what can be done to improve the quality of documents.
> > Since companies and WGs spend lots of time and money trying to get 
> > documents passed, the ability to block
> artificial polarization.  as i said above, documents can be 
> called for discussion by 92.3% of the population.  the 
> problem is that some authors, editors, wg chairs, ... seem to 
> prefer the lazy but beauty contest winning path of saying yes 
> to anything and then hoping the iesg will take the heat for 
> asking the hard questions.
> randy

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list