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

Folks,

Mark, thank for the summary of your view, with which
I agree.

On Monday 02 February 2004 05.44, Mark Allman wrote:
> Thanks for the note!  I think we are agreeing more than we
> are not.

Actually, I think we're in agreement.

> I think that any sort of early review mechanism
> needs to be a "first class" IETF citizen.  It must explicitly
> have the respect and backing of the IESG.

Absolutely.

> That's not to say
> that the IESG will always agree with every review produced
> by some early review entity (whatever that might look like).

Put two engineers in two different rooms with the same
problem to solve and you're likely to get two pretty different
solutions :-)

> But, the IESG has to buy into the early review process in a
> way that everyone knows that the reviews do, in fact, carry
> some weight and that they are to be taken seriously by WGs and
> WG chairs.  And, the expectation should be that issues raised
> during such reviews should be dealt with before documents
> are forwarded to the IESG.  (And, of course, if the WG / WG
> chair is having a problem working through these issues the
> IESG should be willing to help manage that process.  But,
> that is no different from the current system.)

This looks great to me.  Please don't mistake my voicing of
concerns as disagreement.  I believe _strongly_ in the IETF
concensus process and will oppose any attempts to undermine that
fundamental philosophy of cooperation.  It's just important
to me that we understand how fragile that is and do whatever
we can to preserve it.

> That said, I do not think that we need to assign any special
> "authority" to these reviews.  For instance, I don't think such
> reviews would be more or less important than a high quality
> review received by a random person who read an i-d and decided
> to send some comment on it.  All issues raised should be dealt
> with by the WG using due diligence.  The major change I see
> is in the more explcit gathering of reviews from different
> perspectives - not in any special status they might have.

Good.  This is entirely in line with the way I think things
should work.  Is there a way we can collectively say "Ship
it!" at this point? :-)

Cheers,

David

-- 
Text after this signature is inserted automatically in
accordance with Ericsson corporate policy.  It's not my fault.

This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.

E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.

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