Re: IESG Success Stories

--On Monday, January 08, 2007 11:21 +0100 Brian E Carpenter 
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
> On 2007-01-05 20:55, John C Klensin wrote:
> ...
> > I have two questions...
> >
> > (1) Do you have evidence of actual situations in which an AD
> > behaved in this way, kept concerns to him or herself, and then
> > raised them only, and for the first time, via a DISCUSS after
> > Last Call?
> How about a case where an AD had decided, before being an AD,
> not to fight against something s/he thought was misguided,
> and then found it on the IESG agenda two or three years later?
>
> I could give you an example of that.
In case it wasn't clear, my comment was intended to try to 
separate what I consider the egregiously bad behavior of 
deliberately causing late surprises (an activity I have referred 
to in the past as the IESG, or some ADs, playing "gotcha" with 
the community) and situations in which late surprises occur 
through no one's particular fault.  The latter can happen 
because something is just discovered late in the game (an 
overall system failure which we should try to avoid or at least 
minimize, but that will sometimes happen) or for other reasons, 
but don't involve deliberate bad acts on the part of an AD.
The situation you describe is one that, I hope, would be flagged 
and identified to the WG as early as possible, but I can imagine 
an AD forgetting about the earlier concerns until the issue 
popped onto the IESG agenda and then feeling an obligation to 
object.   Too bad, but not, IMO, something that is sufficiently 
disastrous, or likely to be sufficiently frequent, that we 
should shape policy around it.
   john


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf