> > Start giving IESG real rough consensus (rather than consensus by > > exclusion and/or exhaustion) and real running code (or even > > better, convincing analysis that the protocol will work well in the > > wild), and they won't feel the need to rule by edict. IESG appears to > > rule by edict because WGs demand that IESG provide them with very > > concrete feedback. Simply saying "you failed to provide security" or > > "you failed to address the concerns of this other group that you'll > > harm their interoperability" doesn't work - either the WG will balk or > > they'll sit on the document for months not being willing to fix the > > problems. > > All true. This is unfortunate. > > > So ADs try to come up with good technical solutions in order > > to get closure. > > But _this_ is the problem. The AD's job should be to review and manage, > not to personally try to find or design the missing pieces. This task > could and should be offloaded to a separate pool of volunteers. No, it's a symptom. In the current environment, often the best thing an AD can do is to come up with the solution. Of course the AD can ask volunteers to help if he/she can find people that can bring closure to the effort in a short time (and this does sometimes happen when the AD determines that a particular kind of expertise is needed). But the AD is already in the loop and knows what the constraints are; the volunteers typically will not - unless you somehow find a way to cultivate a new group of IETF participants with broad expertise. We shouldn't blame the ADs for doing what (usually) works best in their situation; instead we should find ways for WGs to produce better documents so the ADs don't have to do that. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf