On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 01:27:31PM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > I consider this an abuse of your presumed authority The IETF has been abusing its SAA function these past few years. Download the list archive and search for posts by the SAA and the reactions to them over the past two years and you should see at least to previous incidents where the SAA went beyond its remit. We also had an AD who very inappropriately doubled as SAA -- those who serve as SAAs should not serve in any other leadership capacity, and this should be a hard rule. The pattern seems to be that once the SAA crosses the line the community chastises the SAA and then the SAA goes quiet for a year or so. This means that every time the SAA goes beyond its remit the SAA function loses authority and ceases to function effectively. Now having three examples of this, might the SAA will learn their lesson finally? Or maybe since they insist on misbehaving, the SAA staff should be replaced. > in no way should an expression of disapproval of an IESG action be > considered as a continuation of the discussion that caused the IESG > action It's rather unseemly, isn't it, to allow expressions of approval and disallow expressions of disapproval. Either the very first expression of approval should have met with SAA action on account of the Chair's silence! order, or no expressions of disapproval of the Chair's order should have met with SAA action. At most only continued debate should have met with SAA action. Nico --
