Closed ekr closed 1 year ago
If I remember the discussions correctly, wasting IESG time was not the only issue. We were also concerned with changes in a document after IESG approval. In theory, such changes are only editorial. In practice, we are never sure. If a document is poorly written, it may need many changes for "readability". If there are many changes, risks of changing some of the meaning are large. Having the bulk of the changes done before IESG approval would fix that.
I've had this discussion many times as well, and agree that it's worth discusing yet again (esp. now that we have the RSWG).
I'd suggest considering:
IMHO the policy issue here is roughly this:
Would the RFC Series as a whole benefit if RPC resources were used to improve drafts before their approval (or rejection) by each stream? It's entirely up to each stream whether and when they use such a service.
While an interesting topic, the chairs view this as out of scope of the charter and therefore are closing this issue.
Michael Richardson writes:
Hi, at a side meeting, I think in PHL, there was a discussion about git (hub,lab) involvement and also RPC involvement.
I think that we might have discussed editorial passes to documents before they get to the IESG. I think that having the IESG waste it's time on editorial issues is a serious mis-allocation of time/resources. It will take more than one cycle, because WGLC comments, review comments and IESG DISCUSS comments could each reduce the english quality in the document to zero.