In
<5(_dot_)2(_dot_)1(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)20050612071337(_dot_)03445348(_at_)pop(_dot_)mail(_dot_)yahoo(_dot_)com>
David MacQuigg <david_macquigg(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com> writes:
At 08:54 AM 6/12/2005 +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Sure. I only wanted it on record that any "IESG conspiracy" is
so far bad science fiction. They even managed to publish the
DEA list <http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/dea-directorate.html>
Interesting. So what is the role of the seven people in this
"dea-directorate"?
Do you mean their individual roles, or the role of the group as a
whole? I have no idea what their individual roles were, but the role
of the group as a whole is documented on that web page.
I assume the IESG doesn't go through all the
proposals themselves.
Actually the IESG does tend to go through all the proposals
themselves. There is some discussion on the ietf-general list about
why and whether they should, and if not, what should be done instead.
Are these the "referees" who actually read and
understand the proposals, and separate the signal from the noise?
It is possible, but if they did, they reported nothing to me.
That is certainly better than what I earlier understood is going on.
It is good that they interact with the advocates, and state their
concerns.
What interaction? Where did you get that idea from?
It
would be nice if they state their recommendations publicly, before the
IESG votes, and avoid private communications with the IESG.
Back in January, I asked to be placed on the DEA mailing list so that
I could fix things as they found things explain things if they had
questions. The request was turned down because they wanted to be able
to discuss things in private. Based on that information, I very much
doubt that their comments will be made public.
For what it is worth, it appears that the DEA directorate finished
their work sometime in February, before the IESG voting took place.
If done right, this could provide a way around the "consensus" rule
that allows uncompromising minorities to block any proposal.
You are using the future tense, as the DEA directorate has some future
role. Maybe they do, but I have no indication that they aren't
completely finished now.
-wayne