"Dave" == Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net> writes:
>> Organizations rarely improve by having vague comments about
>> abuse of power tossed around. If you are looking to improve
>> the process I suggest that you raise specific objections to
>> specific actions.
Dave> Sam,
Dave> 1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges
Dave> about these issues, over the last 3 years. I am not
Dave> suggesting anything new or different, merely observing that
Dave> we have done not one thing to attend to them.
No, I was certainly aware of that discussion. I followed the
problem-statement list for a while and followed the plenary
discussions. I seem to have missed the specific complaints thought; I
found a lot of vague claims and a lot of process discussion. I did
not find claims that specific IESG members had used the discuss power
to advance personal agendas.
I may have missed the specifics. There really was a lot of traffic on
the problem list. After I determined that things seemed to be going
in a reasonable direction I did end up spending less energy on it. I
have only so much time and I chose to spend it on technical work.
Dave> 2. The pressures against citing specifics is extreme. And
Dave> the IESG/IAB get predictably defensive. Those who take their
Dave> specific concerns public are roundly punished. And, yes,
Dave> that's another vague claim. However note that you chose to
Dave> issue a public dismissal about my "vague language" rather
Dave> than actually pursue the matter through a constructive
Dave> channel. (
I considered my suggestion constructive in that I gave specific
recommendations for how I thought you should proceed and honestly
hoped that you would follow those recommendations. I had (and have)
every desire to seriously consider any specific claims you make or
point me to.
Dave> No one who has watched the IETF list for any
Dave> amount of time would seriously suggest that this is a
Dave> reasonable forum for pursuing such details.)
I'll suggest that it is the best forum we have. I believe that this
discussion should happen in public and I believe that if there are
specific issues they need to be discussed.
I made the best suggestion I had at the time given that I believe such
discussions need to be public to be effective.
(Note that I'm assuming you believe the problems are bad enough that
they are systemic. If you just believe someone made a mistake then by
all means start by talking to that person privately.)
>> I realize that sometimes your concern is not individual actions
>> but a concern about a trend or a perception of a trend. In
>> such cases I've found that collecting examples together and
>> pointing out that each example taken individually is fine but
>> that the trend is problematic.
Dave> We had an entire working group that expressed these
Dave> concerns.
Dave> How quickly we forget.
See above. I just looked at section 2.6 of RFC 3774 and it does not
seem to discuss the sorts of problems that lead to my comment. If I'm
missing something please point me at it.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf