[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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





--On Saturday, August 12, 2006 7:32 PM -0500 Spencer Dawkins <spencer at mcsr-labs.org> wrote:

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.

Spencer,

This is precisely why I wish that, instead of talking about "gating", we were doing a serious critical path analysis of IETF workflow(s).

    john




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