On 2011-07-28 12:51, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
So, you arguing that all DISCUSSes by ADs are indeed justified and necessary.
No. I said exactly the opposite: "Sometimes there are inappropriate DISCUSSes
and those need to be pointed out when they happen."
It is great to hear that our leadership
They are not our leadership; they are members of our community performing
a service role for the rest of us.
is completely unbiased with regard to technology,
I didn't say that; they are human.
does not follow their own (or a company) agenda,
I didn't say that. In my experience this is pretty rare in IESG discussions,
compared to the blatant company position-pushing I have often seen in
WG discussions. But again, they are human. That's why part of the NomCom's
job is balancing the membership as much as possible.
misjudge their expertise in a certain area,
I didn't say that; they are human.
showed long delays in responding,
I didn't say that; they are human.
etc.
As a document author I remember a couple of cases where certain ADs showed
"interesting" behavior.
So do I. But your name is on 44 RFCs - a couple of cases is not really
surprising.
As Jari said at the plenary it is difficult to talk about this topic without
going into specific cases but on the other hand we don't want to upset
individuals either.
Hence, the story is difficult.
My suggestion: Talk to the Nomcom if you think that certain ADs treated you
in an unfair way.
Absolutely agreed. The NomCom needs an overview of this.
Brian
Ciao
Hannes
On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous "no objection" or missing ballot responses.
Secondly, the drafts are de facto reviewed by review teams
these days (gen-art, security area, etc.). This serves to alert
the ADs if a draft really needs careful review. The workload is
more reasonable than it used to be.
Thirdly, when I was in the IESG, I was surprised quite often by
*glaring* errors that had not been picked up before. Somebody has
to be responsible for catching these, and today it's the IESG.
Fourthly, because of the exact same discussion that Glen raised in
plenary, the IESG defined and published its criteria for DISCUSS
several years ago. Sometimes there are inappropriate DISCUSSes
and those need to be pointed out when they happen.
I hear the IESG members responding exactly right to this question.
--
Regards
Brian Carpenter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf