At 11:01 AM -0500 1/28/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi John,
Additionally, the IASA should ensure that there are reported objective performance metrics for all IETF administrative support activities.
Back when I was actively doing political science, the belief that everything could be reduced to objective and quantifiable terms (the latter is what "metrics" means; if it isn't what was intended, some other word should be chosen) statements like this were described as "physics envy". The statement would be reasonable if "whenever feasible" or the equivalent appeared there somewhere -- we _can_ evaluate the IAOC on its interpretation of "feasible" and how far they are willing to go to satisfy the needs or curiosity of the community.
I did not write this paragraph; I took it (and the previous one) straight from the current BCP. I consider it useless, but harmless, so I have no objection to removing it or to leaving it in.
... on the nature of the review request. Based on the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision and/or to change their operational guidelines to prevent further misunderstandings.
This doesn't give the IAOC the option of saying "no, you are wrong [because...], and we aren't going to change anything".
Sure it does. There is nothing about the last sentence that indicates that the IAOC has to take one of these actions, just that they may.
If you think it would be clearer, we could make the following change:
s/misunderstanding./misunderstanding, or send a response indicating that the IAOC has reviewed the decision or action and found it to be in-line with the published operational guidelines and BCPs.
I apologize in advance for digging up this dead horse for kicking purposes, but I do not believe that an _appeals_ procedure that runs through the IESG is appropriate. First, it increases the IESG workload and, while our reasoning and the details differ, I agree with Avri that shifting work back to the IESG is not a good idea. [...]
Personally, I am happy with a path that goes IESG -> IAB -> ISOC BoT, one that goes IAB -> ISOC BoT or one that just goes to the ISOC BoT. However, I do believe that the ability to appeal a decision to another responsible body is needed, as it is quite possible (given the insular nature of IETF leadership bodies) for most of the IAOC to be involved in a decision and therefore incapable of fairly reviewing it.
The reviewing body (IESG, IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the reviewing body may decide to initiate the required consensus process to change the BCPs governing IAOC actions.
This is not quite right. IETF "public consensus processes" are initiate under the rules of 2026 and associated documents.
Perhaps:
s/initiate the required consensus process to change/make a proposal to the IETF community to change ??
They may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to re-consider their decision or action.
This is actually weaker than the previous text, in which _either_ the IAB or the IESG could _require_ that the IAOC review and, if appropriate, reconsider the decision or action. I can live with it, but I'm astonished if Sam, Avri, etc., can.
This is a decision that the IAOC has already reviewed in the first round. The previous text didn't actually require the IAOC to do anything unless a member of the community could convince the IAB or IESG to ask them to do a review. So, I believe that this text (taken as a whole) is much stronger.
My preference, per your other comments and the paragraph below, is that we lose the above paragraph.
Works for me.
Margaret
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf