RE: [Pesci-discuss] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-davies-pesci-initial-c onsiderations-01.txt]

Looks much better to me than the earlier version.

Initial comments:
- I think the abstract and intro (and possibly some other pieces of
  text) give the impression that it is all about the "standardization
  process". I thought that the idea was to develop a procedure for
  process change for ALL processes in the IETF. 
- I still see a lot of words. That is sort of OK, but it seems to
  reduce the focus of what I think is the main purpose of the PESCI 
  team. And that is to come up with suggestions/principles for
  a new "process for process changes".
- For me that means that the most important part is section 4.2
  (that is half a page of the document).
- In the set of Px statements, I have trouble with P4.
  - I would prefer to NOT need "formal consent from the IESG".
    Because it just brings them back in the loop and does NOT fix the
    "bottleneck" that has been discussed.
  - So I would do the same thing as for WG chairs, i.e. that any
    comments must be seriously considered.
  - For WG chairs, why would only negative comments need to be
    seriously considered? Is positive comments not valuable?

Hope this is useful comments.

Bert

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss