General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

Keith Moore moore at cs.utk.edu
Tue Mar 4 00:49:29 CET 2003


> And if implemented correctly, some of these things 
> might (perish the thought) make it completely unnecessary for the 
> IESG to do the kind of intensive detailed review that it is currently 
> doing because the problems of quality would be addressed at the 
> beginning and middle of the process instead of the end. 

or at least, such review would not be necessary as often.

> And perhaps 
> (again, perish the thought) that would make it reasonable to "dilute 
> the IESGs authority", because solving the problems otherwise would 
> make the authority of the IESG unnecessary.

not likely.  I don't see what this would do to solve the problem of working
groups that try to break rules, or that only give lip service to getting
reviews from, or working out differences with, other interests.  such groups
are not unusual today.  and some group will still be needed to adjucate
disputes between working groups, to evaluate last calls, etc.

but it could mean that IESG needed to exercise its authority far less often.

I don't think we're likely to agree on what would be perfect - but
surely both of those would be improvements?

Keith


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list