>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Scott> re draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
Scott> I think this is a very helpful document - if followed by
Scott> the IESG it should reduce the number of what appears to be
Scott> blocking actions by ADs
Scott> but I did not see any enforcement mechanism - i.e. if an AD
Scott> enters a DISCUSS over a section 3.2 reason how does the
Scott> IESG tell that AD to back off? It seems like the alternate
Scott> voting process is not needed to have the IESG look at a
Scott> DISCUSS comments and reach a consensus that it is not (or
Scott> is) a legit DISCUSS area
how about just waiting to see if we have a problem before designing
new process?
It seems likely that if there is internal conflict within the IESG,
the IESG will find a way to resolve that conflict. If you don't feel
that you can leave these sorts of details to the IESG, then you
shouldn't be trusting the IESG at all. That's a valid position, but
it is not resolved by creating enforcement mechanisms.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf