Keith Moore wrote:
Keith,
The IESG can still exercise their best engineering judgment as
individuals, as the rest of us do.
The IESG role itself need not incorporate a privileged position from
which to wield that judgement. There's plenty left to do.
Joe,
The IESG has several duties that are defined in RFC 2026 and other
documents. These duties include using engineering judgment to determine
whether documents meet criteria for standards track, or whether to bless
certain kinds of protocol extensions. All this notion of "privilege"
misses the point - which is that we cannot ensure document or protocol
quality without having some set of people decide whether or not a
proposal is good enough.
If IESG people were to personally benefit from their exercise of this
"privilege" you'd have a valid gripe. But I don't recall ever seeing
this happen. If it does happen, I don't think it happens very often.
That's why the IESG ballot process has a 'recuse' option. It would be
legitimate for the community to ask why a particular AD had not recuse
him/herself in a specific case, but it's entirely clear that in general
the IESG is expected and required to make technical judgements.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf