This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to
documents in the IETF stream only. Documents in other streams may
only use a registration policy that requires a designated expert if
those streams (or those documents) specify how designated experts are
appointed and managed. What is described below, with management by
the IESG, is only appropriate for the IETF stream.
Can you explain what is meant by this paragraph, and could you provide an
example where this document does NOT apply?
The "only" is misplaced in the second sentence; that sentence should
be, "Documents in other streams may use a registration policy that
requires a designated expert only if those streams (or those
documents) specify how designated experts are appointed and managed."
This comes from situations that have arisen wherein a document in the
Independent Stream asks for a new registry with "Expert Review", which
commits the IESG to appointing and managing a designated expert. This
paragraph is meant to say that, for example, and Independent Stream
document that makes such a request also has to specify who is
responsible for appointing and managing the DE -- and that isn't going
to be the IESG. It also allows for, say, the IRTF to write a document
that says that documents in the IRTF Stream can do this, and the DEs
are appointed and managed by the IRSG.
I will correct the placement of the "only" in my copy.
o The designated expert is not required to personally bear the
burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a
shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as
appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting
the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have
the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert
must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole.
First, I'll note that this paragraph is unchanged from RFC 5226.
The penultimate sentence of the paragraph seems to impose a new step to
reject a request. I'd like to understand what led to this text being
inserted.
You'll have to ask Thomas and Harald that question.
As the IESG been inundated with appeals of technical expert
decisions?
We have not.
I am concerned because if we increase the burden on experts who
are volunteers, I'd point out, people may find that the effort isn't worth
the results to continue.
As this has been in effect since 2008, I don't think it's a problem.
I welcome any specific change you have to suggest.
Barry