This will probably devolve into a yes-you-did, no-i-didn't exchange,
thereby nicely distracting us all from the focus of my posting.
For my part, I fess up.
However, just so no one thinks that I constructed these:
However things have changed. That change was nicely summarized a
couple of years ago by someone who is now an area director. He
said that, really, working groups work for the area director. The
IESG really makes the standards.
This was said by Jon Peterson, in the IMPP working group, before he
became an area director.
I fear that Mr. Crocker portrays my remark here a bit too generously. In
fact, I said something even more radical - that the documents authored by
participants in the IETF are, essentially, ghostwritten for the IESG; that
the IESG, since they make the decision to standardize these documents, are
ultimately responsible for document content. But I think the citation above
is sufficiently close to the spirit of what I said. The context of this
discussion was a dispute about whether or not we should follow IESG guidance
on a particular proposed change to an IMPP working group item (I believed we
should, and Mr. Crocker disagreed).
At the time, Mr. Crocker told me that I was quite wrong about the role of
the IESG, and that he and I would revisit this issue some time in the
future. I am glad that he has chosen to remind me of it now. It would take
someone about five minutes as an Area Director to see how misguided my
perspective had been: to see how forceful pushback on IESG guidance from the
community can be, and to see that the enormity of the review task makes IESG
'ownership' of document content infeasible, even if it were desirable.
Of course, reflecting on my pre-IESG self, I still see the logic in my
former perspective. The quickest path to standardization is to tailor
documents to the tastes of the IESG. What I didn't understand so well then,
I think, is that these "tastes" are the norms of the community, as the IESG
see them. In those cases where the guidance of the IESG does not reflect the
norms of the community, I have found that comments or discusses are easily
overcome by document authors.
Given the change in my own perspective, I had flattered myself that I had
finally become enlightened enough to share Mr. Crocker's view. But it seems,
Dave, that you and I are destined never to be on the same page. There's no
question in my mind today that we live in a bottom-up organization.
Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.