Harald, I think it is important to keep the "under discussion by the IESG", as it helps those reading to understand that it is not a single AD blocking a document, but the IESG coming to consensus about the issues raised. I think the recent discussion of the Legg component matching draft is a good example here; Steve raised an issue, I replied, and we both ended up wanting input from you and Russ in order to be sure of how the document should be understood. "$AD_NAME has raised issues with this document" wouldn't capture that flavor for me, and I suspect it wouldn't for others as well. Just my two cents, Ted At 11:34 AM -0700 6/28/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 27. juni 2003 11:43 -0700 hardie@qualcomm.com wrote:Query: Would it be sufficient to say "$AD_NAME has raised issues with this document"? I'm no lover of long texts in boilerplate..... and your sentence had 15 words, compared to 7 in the original (counting $AD_NAME as one).Hi, Thanks for the effort to shift to more complete sentences. As a wording change, may I suggest moving those which are "document ... ...snip... ... raised by $AD_NAME". I think that would be clearer to outsiders, both as to what went on and what is being done to move forward.
Not suggesting it's worth changing for this version, but for the discussion on what the format should be.....
Harald