I may well be misreading Lakshminath below.
But the note as written seems to say that ADs are only supposed to
judge consensus.
That misses important parts of the point.
They are also selected for technical judgement, and expected to use
that judgement.
So, for example, an AD is NOT required to sponsor an individual
submission, nor required to sponsor a BoF.
If they think the topic is a bad idea, or not in the IETFs area, or
otherwise would not make a good WG< they are supposed to say no.
Heck, they are supposed to say no to some working group charter
requests, even when their is interest. (For example if they think
that the proposed work plan will not lead to an effective outcome.)
To be specific, that judgement is to be used for a lot more than just
prioritizing the work.
Now, they should say "no" clearly, with a good explanation of the
reasons. And they should be open to hearing responses which may
change their view. But that does not change the fact that they are
expect to exercise judgement.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 03:17 PM 6/12/2007, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Folks,
If you want the history of this thread, please see the SAAG mailing
list archive.
Thomas,
...
We do not select our leaders for their technical knowledge
alone. See the oral tradition part of 3777.
The idea that somehow the ADs and the IAB are above the rest of the
contributors is just wrong. They are judges of consensus when
appropriate and the consensus better be independently
verifiable. In the end, the entire process works with the IETF
Community's consensus where the IAB and the IESG get to prioritize the work.
regards,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf