[rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

Joseph Touch touch at strayalpha.com
Fri Mar 27 09:44:48 PDT 2020

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 9:17 AM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>> ...
>> Really? So basically outgoing IESG members get to throw “work bombs” on the incoming IESG and the rest of us?
> Huh? There is a reason there are two outgoing IESG members writing this. 
> 1) We have seen this issue come up several times there is an Updates tag in a draft up for IESG eval during our 4 year term

"Several times” is a poor threshold for a wide-ranging process update.

> 2) Mirja and I picked up this task exactly because we were outgoing and did not want this to be seen as pushed by the IESG on the community.

Then you needed to wait until you were out of office, IMHO. 

Above, you point out that this is being written because of your context as IESG members. You can’t (IMO) believably claim that and then claim this is individual at the same time.

>> ...
>> How about at least showing us a few examples where it actually matters AND would be unambiguous to determine.
> i agree with you that this is a reasonable ask. Your original ask of going through *ALL* current updates was (IMHO) not, and that is what I think Brian was responding to.

Let me be a little more specific in the range of “a few” to “all”. How about enough to warrant this sort of change?

1) how many times did this come up vs other contentious issues at the IESG level?
	the IESG is inherently contentious - being across many areas of expertise and often seeing issues late in the development process when they’re outside their area

2) is there any metric of success here?
	the IESG is never going to “not” need to debate issues such as this; that is their role


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200327/d4f40472/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list