[mpowr] entire quality control process, not just Chair authority

-- was: Re: [mpowr] SUMMARY:  Give WG chairs authority to block
   documents?

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote:

> This is a good summary of part of the discussion. However, I think
> the discussion has gone beyond what you've summarized, to include
> the entire quality control process.

I agree. One more case in point why these
soon-to-be-forced-into-existence working groups and IESG teams are too
narrow and too interdependent to make useful work without bumping into
each other.

> My understanding of where the discussion (which may have moved to
> the solutions list) was at is that a review board like SIRS or ARTS
> would do most of the reviews, and the IESG would only become
> involved if there was a dispute or if the technology under
> development was new or resulted in a deep change in existing
> technology. The WG would thus have primary responsibility to resolve
> quality issues identified by the review board, with the chairs
> co-ordinating, and most documents would be published without the
> whole IESG becoming involved. In case of a dispute, the IESG would
> arbitrate between the reviewers and the Working Group, and the
> document would be published when the disupte is resolved to the
> satisfaction of the IESG (just as now).

I agree with the above.

> In cases where the IESG chooses to do a review, the process would
> look exactly as now, except the WG chair would be expected to
> co-ordinate more actively during the phase in which quality issues
> identified in the IESG review are resolved as was identified in your
> previous SUMMARY email.

I am not sure that "exactly as now" is the consensus here. Some may
want to see changes to the current IESG review procedure, going beyond
"WG would be expected to do more co-ordination" polishing.

> Right now, I'm trying to write up my understanding of the group
> discussion (also taking some points from the ART and SIRS drafts) in
> a draft which I hope to have done shortly.

Great! I hope you post your draft for discussion on Solutions rather
MPOWR, ICAR, and/or PROTO. ;-)

Alex.

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