Document Blocking (Was: I-D

[Bound, Jim]

meaning agree to add no more process if at all possible.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bound, Jim 
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 9:43 PM
> To: Keith Moore
> Cc: presnick at qualcomm.com; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: Document Blocking (Was: I-D
> 
> 
> I agree with adding more process.  I want them to be 
> accountable to explain their actions and in writing somewhere 
> that is all. /jim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore at cs.utk.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 9:40 PM
> > To: Bound, Jim
> > Cc: moore at cs.utk.edu; presnick at qualcomm.com; 
> > problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> > Subject: Re: Document Blocking (Was: I-D
> > 
> > 
> > > I don't disagree with the lightweight process but I think it far
> > > easier just to have an IESG member defend their pushback or 
> > whatever
> > > on the mail list and working group. Discuss it with the
> > members have
> > > debate. If we use this as a more and folkway as part of the
> > role and
> > > job of an IESG member and document it we don't need yet another
> > > process.
> > 
> > My intuitive sense is that IESG has more than enough process
> > already, which is part of why I'm resisting suggestions to 
> > impose more requirements on them.
> > 
> > 
>