Re: [apps-discuss] New appsawg documents

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> I want the process of producing an RFC to be challenging, to demonstrate
> that there is support for this as an RFC and that there has been adequate
> review. Asking for approval for seven I-Ds in three days does limit the
> likely review, and indeed, I see that one I-D has already progressed
> before even those three days are up, but I am not suggesting you extend it.

Maybe you misunderstand the note that started this.  No one has asked
for approval for *any* documents.  We've asked to hear objections to
having the working group *process* the documents.  They still all have
to get review and go through the same process they would have gone
through as individual submissions -- but with *more* oversight and
attention.  How do you think that will cheapen the process?

We're also not handling seven at the same time.  My note said that
we'd focus on three first, and each of those will progress at its own
pace.  And be assured that any documents that have insufficient review
and support will not make it to the ADs.

That some have already "progressed" just means that we've given them
working-group names.  If the working group decides not to handle any
document, either by explicit decision or by neglect and lack of
support, that document can still fail.  Further, most of these
documents have already had significant review, comment, and
discussion, some on this list and some elsewhere.

I'd really prefer to see effort put into discussion of the documents,
rather than into meta-discussion of the working group.  If, in the
end, someone thinks that a document either got a "free pass" by being
handled by the working group, or got mired in process that it would
have avoided as an individual submission, we'd all like to hear about
it then.  If it turns out that this working group isn't helping to do
things right, we can and will shut it down.

Barry