At 14:55 03-11-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
However...
There was detailed feedback provided which received no responses,
and even worse, there has been no record established of IETF rough
consensus for the text you've just announced.[*]
At 15:18 03-11-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
FWIW, I largely agree with Dave. I think the motives here are
entirely appropriate, but the IESG's handing down dicta is
questionable -- and could be quite problematic if a situation
appeared to justify sanctions rather than just education.
I agree with what Dave Crocker and John Klensin wrote (re. the two
messages on the thread). The public record does not show that there
were responses to the questions which were raised. The policy might
be viewed as being dictated instead of one which people have
understood and have agreed to.
The motive may be for the best but it is not a good reason, in my
humble opinion, not to have a discussion with the part of the IETF
Community which put in the time and effort to provide feedback.
At 15:35 03-11-2013, joel jaeggli wrote:
On Nov 3, 2013, at 3:18 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
In effect I believe we're delegating. so if you believe we're doing
to much you should account for that.
A less temporary construct of the ombudsman should be expected
construct more explicit policy around their way of working, I don't
think it's a good idea for non-experts (myself included) to spend a
lot of time on that until there is one for us to consider.
I believe that the IESG can get this wrong, which is why we
shouldn't be dictating the detailed mechanics.
There seems to me a misunderstanding. I read what Dave and John
wrote as being about the lack of response to the feedback instead of
a problem with the delegation to an ombudsman. I don't read anything
in Dave or John's messages as something to do with the detailed
mechanics of the policy. I don't read anything in what Dave or John
wrote as objecting to the policy. It is not a matter of the IESG
"can get this wrong".
The entire matter might be read as:
1. The IESG posts a draft of a policy and requests feedback.
2. Nobody involved in the decision about the draft responds
to the feedback.
3. The IESG approves the draft as a policy.
The alternative in such a case is something which most people would
not want as it is a matter which could easily be resolved by talking
to each other.
Regards,
-sm