-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Keith Moore wrote: >>Nobody died and made the IESG cop. They took it upon themselves, and >>that's not how things (should) work in the IETF. > > > IESG is following RFC 2026, and it takes its responsibilities seriously. > > Keith Not Sec 4.2.3 for individual submissions; that one talks about checking for conflict, not editing for content. Ditto for Sec 6.1.1-6.1.2, which talks about checking for consistency and clarity, but not editing for other reasons. Ditto for Sec 6.5.1, which talks about what to do when WGs disagree. It also mentions what to do when _individuals_ disagree about things or raise technical points; the problem with current process is that the ADs are acting as ADs when the speak about such issues, rather than individuals. Were they to put their objections forth as individuals, it would be necessary to recuse themselves from the process of conflict resolution, because they have a vested interest in the outcome. But I've pointed that out before, notably in Seoul. I have no doubt that they take their responsibilities seriously; I have doubt that there are appropriate checks and balances in this part of the process outlined in 2026, as it is implemented by the IESG at present. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCcA0TE5f5cImnZrsRArhkAJ9p/eIOcmL/J0aAPldqWogCjD9yKwCfYquW bmNLWCkLelU8u/VvmDj2vWQ= =2Jmg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
