--On Wednesday, 10 August, 2005 09:49 -0400 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
...
Another point. I think that John needs to do a bit more work
explaining when this situation is intolerable. I have no
doubt there are cases where it would be bad. However I'm also
thinking of cases where it is reasonable.
Perhaps we can make some progress by examining each other's
examples. I don't think that we are likely to find a single
bright line.
Consider the following situation. An AD tells a working group
that some particular problem must be solved. The AD proposes
a solution as an individual and advocates for the solution.
The working group decides to do something else that doesn't
actually solve the problem. It seems both reasonable and
necessary for the AD to apply pushback.
From my perspective, two things are getting mixed up here, and
that is probably why my comment isn't obvious to you. Steve
Bellovin's example is, I believe, helpful here. But perhaps we
can think about some cases that fill in after "the working group
decides to do something else"...
(1) The problem is clear and real, and the working group decides
to do something that clearly and obviously doesn't solve the
problem.
It is entirely reasonable for the AD to push back on the
"doesn't solve the problem" issue. If the AD's proposal
does solve the problem _and_ there are no other
problem-solving solutions on the table, it is reasonable
for the AD to remind the WG of that proposed solution.
But the AD is on very thin ice if things are said to the
WG that sound even vaguely like "no solution other than
mine is going to be accepted".
(2) The WG has examined the purported problem and there is a
disagreement between the AD and the WG as to whether the problem
is significant.
We have a gray area. It gets appreciably more
gray if the AD is also pushing a particular solution to
the alleged problem.
(3) The WG agrees that there was a problem, but has fixed it
with a solution other than the one originally suggested by the
AD. The AD continues to insist on his or her own solution.
This is the case that I believe is intolerable,
certainly so unless the AD can clearly and publicly
document the reasons why the WG's solution is inadequate
and the AD-proposed solution is far superior.
There are other cases, but I believe the above group illustrates
the distinctions.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there is not a shared
understanding in the community about what is rereasonable and
what would be a conflict of interest.
I agree.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf