Sam Hartman wrote:
Russ, I think that it is absolutely critical ...
However, the IESG is not the IETF.
This is the single-most important statement in your note.
"Absolutely critical" is strong language, but is not warranted by 20 years of
experience or any other empirical basis. We need to be very careful not to
confuse mathematical possibility with operational reality and we need to be
careful to consider real costs, along with theoretical benefits.
The RFC Editor is also part of the IETF, with plenty of its own accountability,
and it has established a history of highly professional and responsible
performance, including over the last 10 years, while under "new" management.
The IESG is not, and must not be, the sole repository for responsible
decision-making in the IETF, yet that really seems to be at the core of your view.
There is no legitimate reason to allow the IESG to mandate language in an
Independent RFC, and there is very good reason /not/ to allow it to.
For example, it then wouldn't be Independent...
Ietf mailing list