RE: I have heard this a few times now

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

--On 29. januar 2003 15:00 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> 
wrote:

> > >
> > > Now... some of that probably has to do with the fact that
> > > so much of the Internet indeed runs on PS instead of DS
> > > or STD.
> > >
> >
> > I think that that is indeed the point.  Worse yet, if we get something
> > noticeably wrong, often the fix will break compatibility, causing
> > serious pushback.
> So I think we (IESG most noticably I think) have been going in this
> direction over a number of years, but we never sough community
> consensus that this was/is indeed the right thing to do.
My impression is that the community agrees that it should be right. "Low 
quality of output" has been frequently cited as a problem - perhaps even 
more often than "IESG delay".
My impression is also that the community has supported such efforts as 
DRUMS and the SIP rewrite - not IESG driven, but community driven. (Not 
that DRUMS was driven very fast - but it DID conclude, eventually).

> I we do get community consensus on this, then I would think it
> might help/explain/motivate authors/editors/wg-chairs/reviewers
> to HELP us all to get better quality in the beginning instead
> of getting complaints about us (the IESG as a last resort) to
> do so much pushback on PERCEIVED details.
It's very rare that I've seen a technical nits pushback be rejected with 
"we shouldn't have to fix this" - the authors seem to want things to be 
perfect, too. (Boilerplate and formatting nits are another matter, of 
course).

                Harald