At 1:43 PM -0800 3/6/08, Sam Hartman wrote:
I know that I would treat a request to rethink whether a discuss I
held was consistent with the discuss criteria document from another
IESG member very seriously. I would treat such a request from an
author seriously, although not as seriously as from another IESG
member. There are a number of reasons for this. The authors are
often much more emotionally involved in a document than ADs. The ADs
are likely more familiar with the discuss criteria than the author and
are definitely more familiar with the current interpretation of the
discuss criteria. No matter how frustrating it is, it's simply true
that procedures like the discuss criteria are subject to
interpretation, and the IESG is going to have an evolving
interpretation of any such procedural document.
I can think of no stronger statement of why the discuss criteria
document should be a community statement that represents the
agreement of the IETF as a whole than that above. If the IESG
can have an "evolving interpretation" of the criteria, then the
community needs to know it and agree to the interpretation.
That interpretation being evolved without community input
in the context of an inward-looking IESG is not appropriate.
And an inward-looking IESG is exactly what is described,
with the trust given to IESG members being greater simply
because they share that common context.
As a side note, this view seems to relegate the document shepherd's
role to "invisible friend", something I would press further on if
Sam were not so immanently leaving the IESG.
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf