Document Blocking (Was: I-D

Spencer Dawkins spencer at mcsr-labs.org
Mon May 19 09:51:18 CEST 2003


I'm glad to see Harald and John making this point.

I see two common reactions, based on whether the WG sees IESG as
gatekeepers ("you can't do this") or as questioners ("we don't understand
why
you want to do this").

Using a feedback template that emphasizes the IETF' role as "questioners"
seems helpful.

Spencer

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf at jck.com>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>;
<problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: Document Blocking (Was: I-D


> --On Monday, 19 May, 2003 12:02 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:
>
> > --On 17. mai 2003 08:01 -0400 John C Klensin
> > <john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:
> >

> > (tangential..... I am sometimes frustrated that WGs seem to
> > take a Discuss as "declaration from on high that a technical
> > decision needs to be changed", rather than as a challenge
> > asking them to explain their positions better; afrter all,
> > what has happened is that the IESG has failed to understand
> > that the WG position is reasonable; either the WG is wrong, or
> > the documents have insufficient convincing power - increasing
> > the convincing power SHOULD be the right answer in some cases.
> > But that seems rare....)
>
> It seems to me that this is a call for more WG training and/or
> for an explicit, boilerplate, cover note from IESG members to
> WGs (and individual authors) indicating precisely that
> additional explanation would be as welcome as a change.   The
> latter, at least, would seem to be easy to implement.
>
>     john
>



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list