Re: [Rfced-future] [rfc-i] RSWG & AUTH48 (was Re: [admin-discuss] Public archival of AUTH48 communications)

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Carsten

What you describe would be a much bigger problem than what i imagined.
Like "we don't catch issues in WG, we don't catch issues in AD/IETF/IESG
review... they end up in AUTH48".

But then it sounds like you'd suggest that it's not only public
visibility but also public input that may be encouraged in the AUTH48
process in your view ? Even when not solicited from current AUTH48
actors. ?? Or a hard ask for authors to be responsible to quicker
escalate anything they can't or shouldn't attempt to do with just
authors/rfc-editors to the WG or other entities.

Let me rephrase: How would you describe the responsibitiles and
accountabilities to improve the process ?

"Make it public and let them come" ?

("All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department...")

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 07:24:49AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 3. Mar 2022, at 07:15, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > I am not aware of backroom dealings for non-editorial changes
> > during AUTH48.
> 
> Of course not. That is the point of backroom dealings!
> 
> More seriously, there is a continuum here, and transparency could help keeping everyone subtly more honest.
> 
> But I’m really not so concerned about backroom deals, but simply with the lack of breadth of the small group finishing the AUTH48.
> Watching some AUTH48 processes from the sidelines and not understanding WHY a vexing change was made can be frustrating.
> These can be editorial mistakes that come back to haunt.
> Lack of breadth can also lead to actual technical errors creeping in — there again is a continuum for these.
> Often, the lack of breadth also leads to longer resolution times, where the actual expert on a question might just have chimed in at the right time.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten

-- 
---
[e-mail]