>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Harald> --On tirsdag, august 09, 2005 16:33:46 -0400 John C
Harald> Klensin
Harald> <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> And the notion of an AD who has contributed technically to a WG
>> in some significant way then pushing back during IESG review if
>> the WG reaches some other conclusion is pretty close to
>> intolerable. Changing the review model would, presumably,
>> clear that situation up in a hurry.
Harald> Only if it does more than just replace "AD" with
Harald> "reviewer" in the above sentence.
Another point. I think that John needs to do a bit more work
explaining when this situation is intolerable. I have no doubt there
are cases where it would be bad. However I'm also thinking of cases
where it is reasonable.
Consider the following situation. An AD tells a working group that
some particular problem must be solved. The AD proposes a solution as
an individual and advocates for the solution. The working group
decides to do something else that doesn't actually solve the problem.
It seems both reasonable and necessary for the AD to apply pushback.q
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there is not a shared
understanding in the community about what is rereasonable and what
would be a conflict of interest.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf