Avri,
--On tirsdag, januar 25, 2005 23:44:09 -0500 avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the IAOC.
I do not understand what you mean by "direct voice". Could you explain?
If what you mean is that the community should have representatives involved
in the consideration of the issues, and do not think that the
nomcom-selected members, the IESG-selected members and the IAB-selected
members of the IAOC are appropriate community representation, I do not see
any mechanism short of the way we constitute recall committees that will
give you what you want.
If you think that the community should have the right of complaint, then I
think you need to accept some limitation by human judgment on how much
effort each complaint can cause. If that judgment is to lie outside of the
IAOC, it has to be invoked for all complaints to the IAOC (making the
system more formalistic); if it is inside the IAOC, it seems reasonable to
have some means of overriding it.
I, personally see not reason why the IAOC is not directly addressable by
the community and does not have a direct obligation to the IETF
community. While I am comfortable with the IESG and IAB being the appeal
path for the IAOC, I am not comfortable with them being a firewall for
the IAOC.
I do have a problem with seeing the words that Leslie proposed as fitting
your description. As described, it isn't a firewall - it's an override of a
safeguard.
I think this is a fundamental question that differentiates Margaret's
formulation from yours. I also think it is a fundamental question that
goes back to issues in the problem statement about the current leadership
model: too much influence is focused in one leadership group. One
benefit of the creation of the IAOC is that it spreads the task of
running of the IETF to another group of people. As such, I think the
IAOC must be required to respond directly to the community.
I don't quite see the logic here - we take tasks that are currently
performed in an undocumented and unaccountable fashion and move them into a
body that has oversight over them, is selected by the community, is
removable by the community, and is (as I see it) normally expected to
respond to the community.
Question: My reading of Leslie's words is that "It is up to that body to
decide to make a response" should be read by the IAOC as "you'd better have
a good reason not to make a response".
Is what you're really looking for a way to make that "bias" in judgment
explicit?
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf