>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> I did not find claims that specific IESG members had used the
>> discuss power to advance personal agendas.
>>
>> I may have missed the specifics.
Dave> Well, no, you probably did not miss the specifics that you
Dave> are looking forward.
Dave> No one is silly enough to stand up publicly, refer to AD X
Dave> and declare "j'accuse". That is sometimes done in private
Dave> communications to the nomcom, but those are confidential of
Dave> course.
I'm certainly silly enough to stand up and say such a thing if I
thought it were true and if I thought that I had no other recourse.
An argument made in this thread is that nomcom is ineffective. I was
assuming, perhaps incorrectly,that you subscribed to that view. If
you come to the conclusion that nomcom doesn't work and are still
interested in fixing the problem, it seems like you have to show
people that nomcom doesn't work. I don't know how to do that in a
fair and reasonable way without specifics. (I guess you might argue
that including specifics will not lead to a reasonable discussion.
Perhaps true; I think everything else will be more unreasonable).
If you do think nomcom is effective then you are completely right that
telling nomcom confidentially about problems with particular ADs is a
fine way to go about making change.
I think however that you and I disagree about how to conduct
organizational introspection. It is certainly a topic on which
reasonable people disagree.
I'll close with one thought about RFC 3774. As far as I can tell,
section 2.6 does not actually make the claim that ADs were abusing
their discuss power; it claims that there was a strong perception ADs
were doing so. The solution to that problem is *not* to change how
discusses work. The solution is to gather the necessary data to
determine whether the perception reflects reality or whether we have a
communication/education problem.
I think we're making strides in that direction. The tracker helps a
lot. Changes in IESG culture help too. There is low tolerance for
poorly specified discusses right now and very low tolerance for
discusses that have not been written up.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf