I believe I agree with you in the sense that if we as a community do not
have rough consensus that this kind of checking should be done, then ADs
should not be asking reviewers to perform this kind of checking. (I
agree that individuals are always free to look for things.)
Personally, I think it would help us on multiple levels if we could, as
a community, agree that this kind of checking should be done, and the
issues should be raised. Neither you nor I have the right to call the
rough consensus for the IETF list / community.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/9/2020 1:08 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--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
