Sam,
Dave> 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their
Dave> concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification
The proto team has already decided on a conflicting approach: the
proto shepherd is ultimately responsible for collecting discuss
comments and forwarding them to the right list.
Here I was, thinking that proto was simply moving some administrative details
down to the working group, rather than creating an enforced, protective
barrier between an individual with veto authority and the recipients of that
veto.
<Sidebar>
Yes, I know the term veto is inflammatory. What folks on the IESG need to
understand is just how inflammatory the problem is, to lowly IETF
participants, when it occurs. It has been an occasional problem since the
beginning of the IETF and it occurs often enough to indicate a structural
problem. It boils down to an inappropriate use of authority, no matter what
its intention might be. From a practical standpoint, the issue with this
problem is the excercise of an absolute authority; that authority is, in the
purest sense, a veto. And we need to be careful about claiming that there is
a way to override the veto, given that it has not been used; hence there is
not existence proof for its being a meaningful way to reverse a veto.)
</Sidebar>
In fact that is all they are doing. We have been doing a version of this
pretty much forever. Indeed, proto really IS merely moving that task from the
cognizant AD to the wg chair (or whoever.)
So it is not "conflicting" with the change being discussed here, except to the
extent that it continues an established model and we are talking here about
changing that model.
This model does not work for any interesting case, making the shepherd
responsible for mediating an interaction that is nearly always complex and
often vague. It is exactly the sort of interaction you do NOT want to have
somebody in the middle of. You want the principals to interact directly.
I think there are some good reasons for this decision. I believe the
proto team has already solicited public comment and received a fair
bit. It is my opinion at least that the community supports their
approach.
This, of course, is the problem with having such fundamental changes
marginalized into a working group that competes with all others for
participation.
In this case, I've no doubt there is support for moving an existing practise
off of an AD and down to the wg.
That does not have anything to do with whether there is support for
*retaining* this model, rather than require more direct communication.
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