On 23 jan 2005, at 21.35, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
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.
My main reason for supporting the creation of the IAOC specifically, is to offload most of the administrative effort from the IESG/IAB. That is also, incidentally one of my reasons for not wanting the IESg/IAB to be involved in every review/appeal, but only in those that get escalated. The other reason is that it is the IAOC that will be the IETF community's representatives in administration and therefore they should be directly responsible to that community.
I agree with the role of IAD becaue I think that job needs to focused in one person. But that does not mean that the person should not be accountable to the community. I know it is harder to do a job with accountability and transparency, but I see any other solution as being problematic for reasons that have outlined earlier.
I remain in favor of Margaret's formulation as the compromise position from what I would truly prefer which is for all IAD/IAOC actions and decisions being reviewable in the same manner that the actions and decisions of the ADs, IESG and IAB are currently appealable.
a.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf