--On Friday, 05 January, 2007 10:03 -0800 Michael Thomas
<mat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My focus was actually a lot more narrow: I wasn't trying to
> insist that AD's be super-human, and I honestly believe that
> the job they do is extremely difficult. My gripe is when an
> outside AD takes an interest in the work, goes to the f2f
> meetings, maybe reads the drafts but then waits to IESG
> evaluation time to DISCUSS their issues. If they know they
> have a problem(s), it would be *far* better to air that sooner
> rather than later for all parties concerned. Doing this leads
> to the perception of a imperious and capricious IESG.
Michael,
I have two questions...
(1) Do you have evidence of actual situations in which an AD
behaved in this way, kept concerns to him or herself, and then
raised them only, and for the first time, via a DISCUSS after
Last Call?
(2) If the answer to (1) is "yes", why didn't you, and the other
people who were impacted, immediately file recall petitions?
The second question is not rhetorical. We all understand that
recalls would be painful and destructive, that would they take
too long to have much practical impact, and so on. However, the
behavior I think you are describing would be such an egregious
violation of the ways that the community and the IESG should be
interacting with each other that I believe a recall would be
appropriate even for someone whose term on the IESG had only a
few months remaining: it would be at least as important to
establish a clear message that the behavior is unacceptable,
ever, as it would be to get the person off the IESG. No one is
valuable enough, hard-working enough, or smart enough that the
community should put up with the behavior I think you are
describing, even for a minute. And that implies to me that
there should be no perception that an AD can get away with it.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf