On 7 maj 2005, at 21.32, Dave Crocker wrote:
Let me try the simplest summary possible:
If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group
of IETF
participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns
directly to
those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it.
Authority always comes with responsibility. In this case it should
simply be
that the authority to block a group has a responsibility to interact
with that
group.
Directly.
Seems eminently reasonable to me.
Even seems practical not to mention good professional etiquette.
I find it hard to understand why an AD would not behave this way
(though I know it is not the common practice).
I have always felt that authority entailed obligations and
responsibility. And the more power a position has the more constrained
the holder of that position should be in his or her behavior.
a.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf