I suppose that I am one of those at the other end of the scale, looking
for a solution that allows full and direct IETF community
On 23 jan 2005, at 21.35, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I agree with the idea that there are extremes when we talk about our
ideas on "review", but please don't assume that JohnK and Michael are
the only people at that end of the pool...
I had assumed that the IETF would let IASA run things with periodic
general feedback and rare specific feedback (only in situations when
the feedback begins "we can't imagine why you ..."). The further we
move from that end of the spectrum, the less I understand why we need
an IASA in the first place.
My main reason for supporting the creation of the IAOC specifically, is
to offload most of the administrative effort from the IESG/IAB. That
is also, incidentally one of my reasons for not wanting the IESg/IAB to
be involved in every review/appeal, but only in those that get
escalated. The other reason is that it is the IAOC that will be the
IETF community's representatives in administration and therefore they
should be directly responsible to that community.
I agree with the role of IAD becaue I think that job needs to focused
in one person. But that does not mean that the person should not be
accountable to the community. I know it is harder to do a job with
accountability and transparency, but I see any other solution as being
problematic for reasons that have outlined earlier.
I remain in favor of Margaret's formulation as the compromise position
from what I would truly prefer which is for all IAD/IAOC actions and
decisions being reviewable in the same manner that the actions and
decisions of the ADs, IESG and IAB are currently appealable.
Ietf mailing list