On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 02:50:45 PM -0400 Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Start giving IESG real rough consensus (rather than consensus by
exclusion and/or exhaustion) and real running code (or even
better, convincing analysis that the protocol will work well in the
wild), and they won't feel the need to rule by edict. IESG appears to
rule by edict because WGs demand that IESG provide them with very
concrete feedback. Simply saying "you failed to provide security" or
"you failed to address the concerns of this other group that you'll
harm their interoperability" doesn't work - either the WG will balk or
they'll sit on the document for months not being willing to fix the
problems.
All true. This is unfortunate.
So ADs try to come up with good technical solutions in order
to get closure.
But _this_ is the problem. The AD's job should be to review and manage,
not to personally try to find or design the missing pieces. This task
could and should be offloaded to a separate pool of volunteers.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf