The major bug that we exposed during the events refered to is that it is very
clear that the IETF process breaks down completely in the case that a technical
working group chair is also a member of the IESG. In that case there is no
effective recourse to the AD or the IESG.
The current situation is that we do not to my knowledge have an AD who is also
acting as a WG chair but this is not prohibited by the process document.
I am not sure if the IETF chair being the chair of a General area WG is a bad
thing or not, I don't think the same set of objections necessarily apply but
even here it might well help to have a independent perspective.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:05 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Scott O. Bradner; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: "Discuss" criteria
"Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
Hallam-Baker,> If you have a chair who is doing their job properly
Hallam-Baker,> and honestly this need not be a problem. The
Hallam-Baker,> process pretty much fails if the chair is part of
Hallam-Baker,> the obstructionist minority.
And here's the crux of the matter. The process does depend
on the chair trying to build consensus.
If that's not happening, talk to your AD or talk to the community.
And be specific.
I realize you have been in various cases. Sometimes people
have agreed with you; sometimes they have seen things differently.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf