Sam, > Dave> 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their > Dave> concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification > > The proto team has already decided on a conflicting approach: the > proto shepherd is ultimately responsible for collecting discuss > comments and forwarding them to the right list. Here I was, thinking that proto was simply moving some administrative details down to the working group, rather than creating an enforced, protective barrier between an individual with veto authority and the recipients of that veto. <Sidebar> Yes, I know the term veto is inflammatory. What folks on the IESG need to understand is just how inflammatory the problem is, to lowly IETF participants, when it occurs. It has been an occasional problem since the beginning of the IETF and it occurs often enough to indicate a structural problem. It boils down to an inappropriate use of authority, no matter what its intention might be. From a practical standpoint, the issue with this problem is the excercise of an absolute authority; that authority is, in the purest sense, a veto. And we need to be careful about claiming that there is a way to override the veto, given that it has not been used; hence there is not existence proof for its being a meaningful way to reverse a veto.) </Sidebar> In fact that is all they are doing. We have been doing a version of this pretty much forever. Indeed, proto really IS merely moving that task from the cognizant AD to the wg chair (or whoever.) So it is not "conflicting" with the change being discussed here, except to the extent that it continues an established model and we are talking here about changing that model. This model does not work for any interesting case, making the shepherd responsible for mediating an interaction that is nearly always complex and often vague. It is exactly the sort of interaction you do NOT want to have somebody in the middle of. You want the principals to interact directly. > I think there are some good reasons for this decision. I believe the > proto team has already solicited public comment and received a fair > bit. It is my opinion at least that the community supports their > approach. This, of course, is the problem with having such fundamental changes marginalized into a working group that competes with all others for participation. In this case, I've no doubt there is support for moving an existing practise off of an AD and down to the wg. That does not have anything to do with whether there is support for *retaining* this model, rather than require more direct communication. 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