On 7 maj 2005, at 21.32, Dave Crocker wrote:
Let me try the simplest summary possible:
If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF
participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to
those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it.
Authority always comes with responsibility. In this case it should simply be
that the authority to block a group has a responsibility to interact with that
group.
Directly.
Seems eminently reasonable to me. Even seems practical not to mention good professional etiquette.
I find it hard to understand why an AD would not behave this way (though I know it is not the common practice).
I have always felt that authority entailed obligations and responsibility. And the more power a position has the more constrained the holder of that position should be in his or her behavior.
a.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf