At 11:01 AM -0500 1/28/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Additionally, the IASA should ensure that there are
performance metrics for all IETF administrative support
Back when I was actively doing political science, the belief
that everything could be reduced to objective and quantifiable
terms (the latter is what "metrics" means; if it isn't what was
intended, some other word should be chosen) statements like this
were described as "physics envy". The statement would be
reasonable if "whenever feasible" or the equivalent appeared
there somewhere -- we _can_ evaluate the IAOC on its
interpretation of "feasible" and how far they are willing to go
to satisfy the needs or curiosity of the community.
I did not write this paragraph; I took it (and the previous one)
straight from the current BCP. I consider it useless, but harmless,
so I have no objection to removing it or to leaving it in.
on the nature of the review request. Based on the results
of the review,
the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision and/or
to change their
operational guidelines to prevent further
This doesn't give the IAOC the option of saying "no, you are
wrong [because...], and we aren't going to change anything".
Sure it does. There is nothing about the last sentence that indicates
that the IAOC has to take one of these actions, just that they may.
If you think it would be clearer, we could make the following change:
s/misunderstanding./misunderstanding, or send a response
indicating that the IAOC has reviewed the decision or action and
found it to be in-line with the published operational guidelines and
I apologize in advance for digging up this dead horse for
kicking purposes, but I do not believe that an _appeals_
procedure that runs through the IESG is appropriate. First, it
increases the IESG workload and, while our reasoning and the
details differ, I agree with Avri that shifting work back to the
IESG is not a good idea. [...]
Personally, I am happy with a path that goes IESG -> IAB ->
ISOC BoT, one that goes IAB -> ISOC BoT or one that just goes
to the ISOC BoT. However, I do believe that the ability to appeal
a decision to another responsible body is needed, as it is quite
possible (given the insular nature of IETF leadership bodies) for
most of the IAOC to be involved in a decision and therefore
incapable of fairly reviewing it.
The reviewing body (IESG, IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the
decision of the
IAD or IAOC
to determine whether it was made in accordance with
existing BCPs and
operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the
may decide to initiate the required consensus process to
change the BCPs
governing IAOC actions.
This is not quite right. IETF "public consensus processes" are
initiate under the rules of 2026 and associated documents.
s/initiate the required consensus process to change/make a
proposal to the IETF community to change ??
They may also advise the IAOC to modify existing
to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise
the IAOC to
re-consider their decision or action.
This is actually weaker than the previous text, in which
_either_ the IAB or the IESG could _require_ that the IAOC
review and, if appropriate, reconsider the decision or action.
I can live with it, but I'm astonished if Sam, Avri, etc., can.
This is a decision that the IAOC has already reviewed in the
first round. The previous text didn't actually require the IAOC
to do anything unless a member of the community could
convince the IAB or IESG to ask them to do a review. So,
I believe that this text (taken as a whole) is much stronger.
My preference, per your other comments and the paragraph below,
is that we lose the above paragraph.
Works for me.
Ietf mailing list