Re: Proposal for Consolidating Parts of the ART & TSV Areas

[Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 13, 2023, at 12:51, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 And IESG should stick to technical review and get out of the business of, for example, deciding which participants to marginalize based on their presumed prejudices.

I can’t parse the hyperbole you are referring at here. If you are referring at moderation (which your message itself shows is really needed) then I believe a proposal is worked upon so the IESG doesn’t have to take that on. If you are referring to masking policies, I agree that is something the community should move to the LLC. If you are referring to something else, I recommend using clearer and objective description of the IESG task you wish to see moved. 

One example: the more ADs there are, the longer IESG discussions can take, and the more people there are who can block or delay a document's progress.

And the better document the community produces. The IESG isn’t an obstacle you need to avert. I’d argue this is time well spent.

.   Also, I wonder if fewer ordinary participants submit Last Call comments because they trust the directorates to do the reviews. 

I actually believe that the hostility and unpleasantness of ietf@xxxxxxxx, which necessitated the split with last-call@xxxxxxxx, has resulted in fewer  IETF LC feedback.

  I have more confidence in the organization when the community believes it is empowered to provide input, and believes that IESG listens to that input

You seem to be accusing the IESG of not listening to the community by pretending you are speaking for the community.

What you can authoritatively say is that Keith would have more confidence and would feel more empowered if Keith believed the IESG would listen to him. That is a statement I would agree with. Your statement however, lacks being actually representative of the community.

Paul