I'm sorry for the way that this discussion has gone. I joined the
discussion in order to let the whole community see both sides of the
disagreement. However, in an attempt to provide clarity and correct
inaccurate statements, the discussion turned into tit for tat. The
back-and-forth banter did not help any of the people that wanted to
understand the issues or context for the disagreement. For my part
in that situation, I apologize. I'll try very hard to not repeat my
mistakes in the future.
As Chair of the IESG, I am going to do my best to find ways to reduce
the number of late surprises. This is in line with the goal that I
set when I took on this position: incremental improvement to the IETF
standards process.
The I-D Tracker and the way that IESG ballot positions are used is at
the center of the issues raised by this appeal. The I-D Tracker was
built with two goals in mind. First, it was intended to increase
transparency. Second, it was intended to help ADs manage the
document review and approval process. The first goal seems to have
been achieved to a greater degree than I ever realized. As a result,
IESG members now find themselves being asked to explain processes
that were previously invisible to the community. As such, I think it
is time to consider whether the IESG ballot structure needs
revision. The ballot was designed for ADs and the Secretariat; it
tells whether a document is ready for approval. Today, it appears
that we also need a ballot that tells the document authors, WG
chairs, and PROTO shepherds what actions are needed to move a document forward.
At this point I cannot give any explicit actions that will be taken,
I sincerely hope that the handling of this appeal will provide
insights for the next steps. I think it is time to let the IESG
process the appeal.
All the best,
Russ
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf