moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu (Keith Moore) wrote on 27.04.05 in
<20050427165016(_dot_)02f6b491(_dot_)moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>:
I am not saying that ADs will never misuse their power. That's what
the appeals process is for. I'm saying that under the current situation
the vast majority of AD "edicts" (as opposed to directed feedback)
are the result of WGs reaching the point of exhaustion without
producing good designs. Fix that problem and it becomes reasonable to
expect fewer and less onerous AD "edicts" and to push back on those
edicts more often.
WG exhaustion isn't always a WG problem, either.
ISTR a case of a WG that got replaced its chair by the IESG, and told to
do its work differently, two or three times - and *every* time, the new
chair stopped posting to the list after a short time. (The last time, I
think he came back after a significant timeout.)
That's a recipe for exhaustion if ever I saw one. I might even call it
active sabotage.
MfG Kai
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf