ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Voting (again)

2005-04-25 23:29:51
  I did not find claims that
 specific IESG members had used the discuss power to advance personal
 agendas.

 I may have missed the specifics.

Well, no, you probably did not miss the specifics that you are looking
forward.

No one is silly enough to stand up publicly, refer to AD X and declare
"j'accuse".  That is sometimes done in private communications to the nomcom,
but those are confidential of course.

The detail that was worth noting was the prevalence of the view.  It's not
just the stray crazy, like me.

The problem is not that ADs have nasty intentions. It's that the
otherwise-essential job of quality assurance has been taken to the extreme of
having ADs block completed work that has been developed in all the proper
ways.  This includes AD vetos (which are euphemistically called "discuss")
with non-normative issues or requirements for lists of adjunct -- ie, not
required -- work.


 However note that you chose to issue a public
dismissal about my "vague language" rather than actually pursue the
matter through a constructive channel.
....
 Dave> No one who has watched the IETF list for any amount of time
 would seriously suggest that this is a reasonable forum for pursuing
 such details.)

care to point at any equivalent, public discussions that have been productive?

I haven't seen one in the 15 years I've been involved with the IETF.  And from
what I can tell, they don't happen anywhere else, either.

What open public discussions can be good for is to surface issues, not to
pursue the details of their solution.


 (Note that I'm assuming you believe the problems are bad enough that they
 are systemic.

Entirely.  It's been an issue since the IESG was put in charge.  It has
nothing to do with individuals and everything to do with the way we have
structured (and run) things.


 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.

as you noted, the group vectored over to process issues.  we like doing that,
these days.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>