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

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

David-

Thanks for the note!  I think we are agreeing more than we are not.  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.  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).  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.)

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.

My $0.02 for tonight.

Thanks!

allman


--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr