On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 10:47:18PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 9/10/23 18:49, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> > > Also, the AD is the one who has to be responsible for the decision to
> > > approve or DISCUSS a document. "proxying" such review to someone who hasn't
> > > accepted any responsibility, and who isn't subject to any pushback for poor
> > > decisions (or worse), seems like a fundamental violation of process.
> > But like with any other role in the IETF there is the acceptance of responsibilities.
>
> Perhaps I should be more precise. If an AD turns out to be a poor choice,
> there are at least in theory remedies - a process that can be followed and
> the AD can be removed, etc.
>
> I don't like the idea of ADs delegating their responsibilities in general.
I was only thinking of a document-by-document basis. I've already seen more
than enough AD reviews deteriorate to directorate reviews recited by the responsible AD.
So, why should an AD not trust directorate members that have repeatedly shown to
provide good if not better reviews (on the specific topic) than the AD could do him/herself
to also drive the resolution of DISCUSS ? We also have chair delegates ;-)
> I especially don't like that idea if ADs can use delegation to shift their
> responsibilities to people for whom there are no remedies if they fail to
> follow process or otherwise work against the community consensus or the
> interests of the broader Internet community.
How would there not be the same remedies against such delegation activities.
Instead, it arguably becomes easier, because the AD as the administrative entity
is a first line of complaint, much easier to address than any redress against
an AD (which is a more convoluted process).
Cheers
Toerless
> Keith
