> > > we need to allow IESG to use some discretion here. > > what *kind* of discretion? > > should we allow the IESG the discretion to decide what they like or > don't like and then allow them the authority to make the decision based on that? IESG should have discretion to evaluate such proposals for soundness, along with supporting material and community comments, and make a decision. And if people disagree with that decision, that's what appeals are for. > or, should we allow the IESG the discretion to note potential issues and > then allow them the authority to raise seek review and consensus from the IETF? No. _Someone_ has to decide whether a proposal has sufficient merit to approve it, and whether any technical or process concerns raised are sufficiently valid to deny the proposal or to request that it be revised. Of course, that someone can be capricious, and that's unfortunate. But taking IESG out of the loop doesn't solve that problem, it only moves it. And it's probably worth pointing out that both individuals and working groups can be at least as capricious, and incorrect, as IESG can. Your effort to make IESG seem capricious by using words like "what they like or don't like" applies at least as much to other parties as it does to IESG. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf