I understand the technical judgment argument, but I see a lot of
practical issues with it. First, an AD (or an IAB member) may not be an
expert in all the topics under review; in fact it is probably unfair to
assume that they are. Some of them seek help from the community (hear
both sides of an argument, which to me is the right way to do it) and
others seem to rely on one of their colleagues' opinion (I have heard
people say, X thinks this is wrong/right and I believe them more than I
believe Y who I have never met). That's only human, but it could also
be wrong. What if X were biased and Y has a valid argument, which may
or may not be immediately apparent to all (add to that language and
cultural barriers, we may have serious practical issues). I can go on,
but it sounds really bad, so we won't go there.
I appreciate your idea of checks and balances (your last paragraph), but
I think they are not enough. Some ADs don't follow process. Even when
explanation is sought on a topic, some ADs make light of the issue and
others are non committal. Pointing out an issue sometimes is considered
a problem. The recall process is a hammer and we never dare to actually
use it. I want to also accentuate the positive: there are also many
ADs/IAB members who take extra steps in the interest of fairness and
engage in a dialog when there are issues. That is of course very much
appreciated.
I am generally of the idea that concentration of power, that too without
transparency and without practical checks and balances is dangerous. I
would have thought it is a universally held opinion (perhaps with the
exception of people who hold such power).
regards,
Lakshminath
On 6/12/2007 6:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf