> I did not find claims that > specific IESG members had used the discuss power to advance personal > agendas. > > I may have missed the specifics. Well, no, you probably did not miss the specifics that you are looking forward. No one is silly enough to stand up publicly, refer to AD X and declare "j'accuse". That is sometimes done in private communications to the nomcom, but those are confidential of course. The detail that was worth noting was the prevalence of the view. It's not just the stray crazy, like me. The problem is not that ADs have nasty intentions. It's that the otherwise-essential job of quality assurance has been taken to the extreme of having ADs block completed work that has been developed in all the proper ways. This includes AD vetos (which are euphemistically called "discuss") with non-normative issues or requirements for lists of adjunct -- ie, not required -- work. > > However note that you chose to issue a public > > dismissal about my "vague language" rather than actually pursue the > > matter through a constructive channel. .... > Dave> No one who has watched the IETF list for any amount of time > would seriously suggest that this is a reasonable forum for pursuing > such details.) care to point at any equivalent, public discussions that have been productive? I haven't seen one in the 15 years I've been involved with the IETF. And from what I can tell, they don't happen anywhere else, either. What open public discussions can be good for is to surface issues, not to pursue the details of their solution. > (Note that I'm assuming you believe the problems are bad enough that they > are systemic. Entirely. It's been an issue since the IESG was put in charge. It has nothing to do with individuals and everything to do with the way we have structured (and run) things. > See above. I just looked at section 2.6 of RFC 3774 and it does not seem > to discuss the sorts of problems that lead to my comment. If I'm missing > something please point me at it. as you noted, the group vectored over to process issues. we like doing that, these days. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf