Re: Proposed resolution of the AD-shepherded info/experimental no n-WG document issue

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> I like Harald's original text much better than yours.
> The reason is that in your text it looks to me as if individuals
> are encouraged to try the path via the AD (which will put extra
> load on us and require us to say NO more often).

Yep, I see that. And my wording will be flame bait for a sector of the
community. 

> The text in Harald's proposal leaves the initiative to the AD. Such
> could be his initiative after an individual has asked him... but I
> think it protects us much better from DoS attacks.

Then lets at least find better wording then "docs that are
important", and in particular, "more important than others".

Also, I think just focusing on the "bring before the IESG" ignores one
aspect of the complaint about fairness. What people seem to have a big
issue with is:

a) the amount of time needed for the AD review (and IESG review)
   process. In theory, rfc editor documents have a 4-week time limit
   here. For stuff not through the rfc editor, there is no
   written-down limit.

b) whether in fact an AD or the IESG has the right to even comment on
   a document other than in very narrow circumstances (e.g., conflicts
   with a standards effort).

When John and some others talk about the above, they are apparently
trying to minimize the role of the IESG review, and make sure that
time limits are short.

If we are going to discuss an issue, that is the one that needs to be
focussed on, I think.

In the case of SLP, what right do I (or the IESG) have to push back on
any of the experimental stuff? There is no WG anymore.

Thomas