A better management/technical split that I can see would be exemplified by the
recent proposal of an anti-harassment statement (q.v.).
At the moment it is the IESG's responsibility to produce such statements and it
is currently the IESG's responsibility to hear appeals etc. That *seems* like
a very different task from reviewing documents or keeping a WG within charter
and working to its millstones.
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Joel M.
Halpern
Sent: 20 October 2013 20:55
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: John C Klensin; IETF Discuss
Subject: Re: Separate ADs roles from IESG
The obvious risk if one separates WG management from review is that one
could easily get the situation where the manager, in working with the
WG, says that the document needs X, Y, and not Z. And then the reviewer
says "needs Z". And there are more extreme versions of this.
Currently, the ability for the managing AD to say "no, this won't pass
muster" is part of his management tool. If he is not the reviewer, he
seems to have lost an important tool. I hope I am missing something
that would make this sort of approach workable.