Andrew Sullivan <ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:34:22PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
The sad truth is, the IESG no longer has the spare cycles to "Just
say No."
I was on the receiving end of an IESG that simply stalled a document
until the WG changed its approach, because of IETF concerns, so I
disagree with that claim.
By all means, volunteer for an IESG position if you disagree...
But if it is true, then we might as well give up.
It is clearly true that IESG agendas are growing longer. I have to
_beg_ to get the five-minute break observed, sometimes.
If there's weak IETF consensus (with some strong objections)
to a document that comes from a WG and has strong consensus inside the
WG, the _only_ people who can say no are the IESG; and they must.
There are a lot more people who say the IESG MUST NOT say No without
giving a convincing reason.
In practice, it comes down to the Responsible AD. If s/he can find
the cycles, the rest of the IESG can support him/her; otherwise the
pressure to clear a DISCUSS becomes overwhelming.
We are no longer in the days when it was common for one DISCUSS
to hold up a document for many months.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>