Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early

... and this line of thought, which I happen to agree with, has a
decent amount of overlap with something like a Working Group Snapshot
(the concept, not the current proposals), being discussed on NEWTRK...

Maybe the right number of ideas, but spread over too many mailing
lists! I understand the desire for modularity, but modularity also
required low coupling between modules.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Partain" <david.partain@ericsson.com>
To: <mpowr@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: [mpowr] Re: Getting Bad Ideas to Fail Early

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the comments, James.  I've cut out previous
> conversations since this discussion seems to live on its own.
>
> On Friday 30 January 2004 22.57, James Kempf wrote:
> > I think we need to make a distinction between the IESG approving
publishing
> > a document, as currently, and a change where an individual AD
could approve
> > a document. I can see a process where, if the reviews come in good
and the
> > WG agrees to make any proposed changes, an individual AD is
allowed to
> > simply approve publication without requiring the entire IESG to
review or
> > even to have to read the reviewers comments. This could save the
IESG a lot
> > of work.
>
> This is certainly worth considering.  As long as we can assure
> credible cross-area review and subsequent consensus with the
> working group, the streamlining effect of this might be a
> very good thing.  It might be good in such a process if the
> IESG at least gets a heads up and 5 minute rundown on the
> document during the telechat before it goes through.  If it
> raises any red flags at that point, the person who's concerned
> gets X days to look at and comment on the document or it just
> moves on.  Maybe I'm endowing the IESG with too much wisdom,
> but it seems very important to me to have some entity with
> the Ultimate Sanity Check authority.
>
> > I can't see a case where the document gets approved automatically
> > without the AD's involvement.
>
> We agree.
>
> > I believe there will always be an element of
> > judgement in deciding whether the reviews were adequate, the WG's
response
> > was appropriate, etc. that one would want to have a knowledgable
human in
> > the loop for publication approval.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr