On 9/13/23 13:11, Paul Wouters wrote:
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.
Ok, to clarify, I was referring to "moderation" and other efforts that
I've seen to marginalize certain participants based on their views
and/or how they think.
If IESG is working on getting out of the moderation business, and
(hopefully also) out of the business of telling moderators what to do, I
think that's a promising step, and I'm happy to learn that.
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.
I think there's a point of diminishing returns, that there's an
approximate number of ADs that tends to produce the best results. I
used to think that number was about 12, though conditions may have
changed enough since I made that assessment to change that number somewhat.
My point for the moment, however, is that simply adding more ADs is not
always a good idea, and that IESG doesn't really scale to an arbitrary size.
. 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.
From my perspective, most of the hostility and unpleasantness has been
caused or at least exacerbated by recent IETF Chairs, their appointees,
and sometimes by members of IESG.
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.
No, I'm quite clearly speaking for myself. Please don't put words in my
mouth.
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.
My own statement was clearer and more precise. And I believe that the
tactic of misstating what someone else said, when done to cast shade on
that person, should be forbidden by the Guidelines for Conduct.
Keith
