On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 11:35 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/29/23 02:27, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I agree that the IESG's job is to Push_Back the ready_AD_adopted_Draft
> even if there is consensus power,
> but IMO the problem mostly is the IETF's procedure not
> IESG_job_execution, because part of IESG which is one AD is adopting
> that draft), so it can make it more difficult to Push_Back than to
> accept by other ADs. However, that procedure makes it quick to process
> work (less process_delay), which should be used for some
> proposed_drafts not all/BCP.
> Any decision making body/individual within IETF (especially IESG)
> needs to have complete balance in power for accepting or denying but
> IMO IESG's procedure is not helping that balance in decision quality.
>
I always believed that every AD who has competency in the subject of a
document under consideration, has an obligation to evaluate that
document independently, before considering the opinions of others. It
doesn't work if there's any pressure to agree with the working group or
the responsible AD.
Do you think there is some kind of acceptance_pressure on the IESG can happen when one AD is adopting the proposal and delivering it to the table after his/her acceptance? Isn't it better that the proposal is delivered by an independent_director (to insure no pressure or no politics) to the IESG and not by an IESG_member?
AB
