Re: [newtrk] Reviewing state of PS and DS standards

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>]

> If the same process is followed as was used for the "decruft" process, the 
> IESG still has to sign off.   That sort of small team effort may take the 
> IESG (at least temporarily) out of the critical path, but, if I understand 
> the concept of "gating", it doesn't change that fact.
>
>   john

One thing I liked about decruft is that the IESG was delegating all the work 
except approval. "Gating" matters, but so does who does most of the work.

I would not be offended to see process change that delegates some approvals, 
but delegating work right up to the point of approval doesn't require 
process change, and somehow seems to "gate less" on the IESG.

Thanks,

Spencer 


.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html