--On 16. september 2004 14:32 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
... The IAB
(and its Chair) are in considerably better shape on this than
the IESG (and the IETF Chair), since the IAB has not direct
standards-setting responsibility. But the turf is pretty
dangerous and, ultimately, the IETF's collective reputation for
balance and impartiality is one of our most important assets.
Yes, and we should certainly adjust the balance of the committee, or
Board, or whatever it is, to reflect this concern.
The crucial point for me is that if things don't work for the people who do
the work, the oversight function learns of it quickly, and can take action
- and vice versa; if the oversight function decides that something needs to
change, someone with as much insight as possible in the impact on the
standards process should be there to discuss it.
I think this is reasonably well served by having the IESG representative be
a non-voting liaison - the wide communications path is the part I think is
critical. Having the group make decisions without direct IESG
involvement.... leaves me feeing that we are making a suboptimal design.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf