So, I am curious. Have people looked at
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html (which I BELIEVE is
the current form of the DISCUSS Criteria document - this really needs to be
an ION, but that's another story)?
Does this look like the kind of "guidance" Randall is talking about?
Thanks,
Spencer
p.s. I tend to agree with many things that have been said in this thread,
but want to give credit to recent IESGs who have documented things that
weren't actually written down (DISCUSS criteria, many-but-not-all of BOF
proposal evaluations, etc.).
From: "Randall Gellens" <randy(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
At 7:00 PM -0400 6/22/07, John C Klensin wrote:
I believe that we should be selecting IESG and IAB members who
can and will exhibit very high levels of technical maturity and
breath, and consistent good judgment. I believe that being
sufficiently mature and self-aware to avoid either substituting
one's own judgment for that of the community or imposing one's
personal preferences as a blocking requirement is a corollary of
that selection criterion. If we cannot find enough people like
that, we should shrink the relevant bodies and, if necessary,
the amount of work the IETF tries to do, rather than trying to
get by on third-rate people.
I agree with John here, but I see problems with this in practice. In
particular, what to one person is clearly substituting one's own judgement
or preference, is to another just showing good judgement. So it is hard to
truly select such mature people, because the same person will appear to
some as mature and to others as inappropriate.
One thing we can try to do is to have more clear criteria for exercise of
discretion. Not in the form of hard rules, but simply as more detailed
guidance that we can hopefully update with experience. That makes it
easier to determine if someone is abusing discretion.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf