Subject: Fwd: Re: time-to-approve etc. [Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:Doingthe Right Things?)]

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:39:45 -0400

This didn't make it to the list the first time because Pekka's original
included multiple cc: lines, which my mail reader seems to ignore.

Margaret

>Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:39:48 -0400
>To: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
>From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: time-to-approve etc. [Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the 
>reform process (was:Re:Doingthe Right Things?)]
>
>
>Hi Pekka,
>
>At 03:06 PM 6/9/2003 +0300, you wrote:
>>So, my perception is that the most time-consuming thing after submission
>>to the IESG appears to be resolving issues raised by IESG; I hope nobody
>>sees this delay as a problem of IESG :-).
>
>In most cases, I agree that this isn't an IESG problem...
>
>However, it is true that cryptic or poorly understood issues can
>take a long time to resolve.  So, if it takes a significant amount
>of time for the WG or authors to understand the IESG's issues,
>that may be the fault of the IESG.
>
>I also believe that the feedback from the IESG could be offered
>more openly (perhaps by mailing it to the pertinent WG?) which
>would allow the WG to put pressure on the chairs and authors to
>correct the problems.  Right now, it can appear to a WG that a
>document has "disappeared" in the IESG, when actually it is
>waiting for updates from the authors.
>
>Margaret

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:24:09 +0900

> waiting for updates from the authors.

definitely agree.  and one tries to do that.  

but it is not infrequent that a document has one or more issues
where couching them in terms which would not embarrass the authors
if made very publicly (and remember, we have authors from cultures
with varying sensitivity to such things) would tax the talents of
marcus aurelius let alone the overloaded engineers with which we
staff the iesg.  while this is not the majority case, it does mean
we should not make a hard and fast rule.

randy