On 6/29/23 15:04, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
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?
I don't have nearly enough information to support that kind of
speculation. I can only state my opinion that it's vital for IESG
to consider a spectrum of opinions both when considering whether
rough consensus has been met, and also (separately) when
considering whether known technical omissions have been
addressed. (There are of course other criteria for Proposed
Standard also, which I also believe should be considered
separately when deciding whether a document meets those criteria).
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?Given that IESG does all of chartering WGs (and appointing chairs, etc.), supervising WGs, and deciding whether their output meets criteria, I don't see any simple change that removes political pressure. My impression from long history is that the stated processes work well enough if they're followed faithfully. Whether current IESG is taking shortcuts that subvert that process, again, I don't have enough information to even speculate about that.
But I do wonder if the process would benefit from a neutral "watchdog" who would be in charge of making sure the process were followed. I don't see how the Chair can really be neutral, or trusted to be neutral, any more.
Keith
