--On Friday, 15 July, 2005 10:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> Whereas the narrative minutes would say
> "The IESG discussed the Foobar WG and agreed with the AD's
> proposal to continue with the current WG chair."
Brian,
As part of the experiment, and in consultation with counsel if
needed, I would hope that the narrative minutes would push that
a bit harder, e.g., to
"The IESG discussed management issues with the Foobar WG
and agreed with the AD's proposal to monitor the
situation more intensely and continue with the current
WG chair."
Without getting into the personnel-related reasons for the
decision, that signals to the community that the AD, and the
IESG, are aware that there is a problem and plan to take some
additional measures to cope with it. We need, I think, to know
that much; we don't need to know the details of why a different
course was not chosen.
Of course, at the risk of conflating threads, I would hope that,
any time a "X is lousy but there is no possible replacement"
situation arises, the cognizant body would ask itself and, to
the extent feasible, the relevant community, the meta question
of whether it is appropriate to continue the work if leadership
depth and interest is that shallow. The answer to that question
may often be "yes" but it seems, IMO, that it is important that
it be asked.
It is precisely because the above concerns can be raised and
examined in this context --and cannot in the context of
decision-record minutes-- that causes me to think this
experiment is a wonderful idea. I thank you and your IESG
colleagues for being willing to propose and consider it.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf