Hiya, On 16/08/2023 18:04, Keith Moore wrote:
What's abundantly clear is that IESG should not be making such decisions unilaterally. IESG is, inherently and by its very nature, too short-term in its focus.
That short-term thing is a problem for the IESG yes. (Due to workload demands and the difficulty of engineering change I think.)
It's nowhere nearly representative of the whole community; actually it's been working hard to suppress parts of the community that it doesn't like, and for dubious reasons.
FWIW, I don't think you're even near correct there, and your
in any case unconvincing claim is IMO badly damaged via the
pejoratives ("suppress", "dubious").
IESG does not have the authority to change IETF Consensus rules,
Yes.
and it very badly needs to be reined in.
No. IMO, the IESG actually need to try do the opposite to that and propose (not impose) some radical changes in how the IETF does its work. My guess is if they don't propose something radical and soonish, then we (the community as a whole) and events generally (e.g. climate change and corporate policies) might well overtake 'em. Cheers, S. PS: wrt the subject line, I've no problem with the IESG dealing with changes to interim meeting guidance in a step by step fashion, but it'd probably have been a good plan to have said that's what was being done rather than just pop out the revised statement without that context.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
