Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the idea that there are extremes when we talk about our 
ideas on "review", but please don't assume that JohnK and Michael are 
the only people at that end of the pool...

I had assumed that the IETF would let IASA run things with periodic 
general feedback and rare specific feedback (only in situations when 
the feedback begins "we can't imagine why you ..."). The further we 
move from that end of the spectrum, the less I understand why we need 
an IASA in the first place.

Spencer

> If I have correctly understood, you are at, or close to, one
> extreme.  Your view, as I understand it, is that the IASA should
> be treated as a semi-independent body with periodic "reviews" of
> its performance and little or no ability of the IETF community
> (including the IAB and IESG) to interfere in any individual
> decisions either before or after the fact.
deleted down to
> At the other extreme are those who believe that the IASA is
> really a functional subsidiary of the IETF, that all (or as many
> as possible) of its decisions should be able to be overturned by
> the IESG (or IAB, or both), that the community should be able to
> appeal individual IAD decisions, with the potential of having
> those decisions reversed and with the appeal chain running
> though the IESG and IAB to, potentially, the ISOC Board as is
> the case with standards-related decisions. 



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf