Re: Comments on draft-iesg-charter-02.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

>  Is there any document that gives the responsible AD
> this authority?

common sense does (in my opinion)

1/ the AD understands (to some degree) what concerns the rest of the IESG 
will have so it makes sense to get these fixed before bringing
it in front of the IESG

2/ the AD need to be able to explain/support the doc to the rest of
the IESG - if they are not ready to do that there is not much reason to
bring it forward

it makes a gerat deal of sense to me for the AD to do a review for
things that would make the document get through the IESG (like
the WG ignored the ID nits, has text that does not make sense,
ignored security, ignored other work being done in the IETF, etc)
and push the doc back to the WG to deal with these things before 
taking up the IESG time with a doc that is not ready for
prime time - also, getting it front of teh IESG, just to get it returned
for these kind or reasons will mean it will come back to the IESG
at a later date too often after a long time so teh IESG has to do a real
review (doubling the IESG effort on it) 

I do think that this review can be, and has been, over done and
sometimes is a too much a reflection of the individual AD's biases
than of ensuring clarity or good technology

I'm not sure what can be done to avoid the extremes and yet preserve the 
logical area management role (which includes making sure that the WGs put out
good documents) but I think that saying "no AD review" will do anything other
than increase the workload on the IESG


Scott