On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Dave, From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes in this situation: 1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to more effectively communicate the concerns. 2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary. However, I think that the community tends to see instead: 1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield 2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back as "Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change to satisfy the IESG," even though I would have been willing to have the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion. I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might have overlapping issues, etc. However, if it's perpetuating the myth that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do *something* about it. Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf