[mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Summary of Discussion on Reforming IETF Quality Control Process

I may be missing something, but the problem I see reading this is that this 
gives the IESG no assistance in deciding which documents it needs to 
review.  There was another proposal which I read to say ~the IESG needs to 
review documents for which there is disagreement about the results of other 
reviews.~  While one can argue about whether that is good or not, it at 
least spells out when the IESG needs to review a document, and when it does 
not need to.
Obviously, if we can lighten the load enough that the IESG has time to 
review more than it needs to, that is great and they should do so.
Equally, some IESG members will review some documents over and above such a 
"requirement", since they will be interested.
But my understanding of one aspect of this discussion is to help replace 
the current ~the IESG must review everything~ with a useful alternative 
review procedure, and a useful definition of which things the IESG needs to 
review.
(Among other things, such a reduction should help enable the necessary IESG 
reviews to occur in a more timely fashion.)
The text below seems to say taht there are no documents the IESG needs to 
review.  While it would be nice to arrive in such a state, I doubt we can 
get there in one jump.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: Can we pick one of the three lists for this?

At 10:43 PM 1/9/2004 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>There should be no "requires full IESG review" flag or state for any
>document. IESG is not a special case when it comes to review. IESG or
>any single AD can submit a review for any document that is up for
>review, at any time. This is no different from any IETF participant
>submitting a review. If IESG feels that a particular document needs
>full IESG review, it is their internal business, invisible and
>unpredictable to others (in general), until they submit a review. In
>general, one does not know a priori whether a document will be
>reviewed by IESG until the IESG submits the review.

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