On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF
participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to
those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it.
From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes
in this situation:
1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with
the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to
more effectively communicate the concerns.
2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually
have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary.
However, I think that the community tends to see instead:
1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield
2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG
I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back
as "Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change
to satisfy the IESG," even though I would have been willing to have
the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion.
I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that
WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's
issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might
have overlapping issues, etc. However, if it's perpetuating the myth
that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do
*something* about it.
Ietf mailing list