--On Saturday, August 8, 2020 23:56 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Let me approach the quesiton of what i sneeded slightlhy > differently. > > Do you think the General AD has enough support / authority to > ask the gen-art reviewers to look for problematic language? > If so, what should she point to as examples of what one might > look for? (The gen-art review team has people with a range of > language backgrounds.) Joel, I'm going to answer a slightly different question. I still believe in the IETF principle that we operate bottom-up. I have come doubt recently that others do, especially as we see policies of various sorts developed top-down and out of public view and them exposed to the community for "consultation" or approval. I hope the changes are just an aberration due to the unusual circumstances of the last six months or so and that our processes will soon return to normal but wish I were more confident about that. So I think anyone in the community has the right to ask anyone, including a particular review team or any or all WGs, to look for problematic language... and to use whatever examples they think are important in making that request. Those participating in that team or WG are, presumably, free to treat it as a request -- one that they should consider but are not obligated to accept and follow. Now, to take that a step further and respond to a question you definitely did not ask but that seems to be underlying some small bits of this discussion (and a few others that are going on): Does the General AD/ iETF Chair (or even the entire IESG) have sufficient authority to insist that members of a review team do a particular type of review --for language, for conformity to the AD's views on some particular technical matter, or something else -- or to pick/allow only those people on the review team whose views are harmonious with theirs? No, I think that would be an abuse of power, a violation of our principles of bottom-up decision making and doing things by community consensus, and a serious danger. best, john
