Re: IESG Success Stories

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





--On Monday, January 08, 2007 11:21 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2007-01-05 20:55, John C Klensin wrote:
...
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?

How about a case where an AD had decided, before being an AD,
not to fight against something s/he thought was misguided,
and then found it on the IESG agenda two or three years later?

I could give you an example of that.

In case it wasn't clear, my comment was intended to try to separate what I consider the egregiously bad behavior of deliberately causing late surprises (an activity I have referred to in the past as the IESG, or some ADs, playing "gotcha" with the community) and situations in which late surprises occur through no one's particular fault. The latter can happen because something is just discovered late in the game (an overall system failure which we should try to avoid or at least minimize, but that will sometimes happen) or for other reasons, but don't involve deliberate bad acts on the part of an AD.

The situation you describe is one that, I hope, would be flagged and identified to the WG as early as possible, but I can imagine an AD forgetting about the earlier concerns until the issue popped onto the IESG agenda and then feeling an obligation to object. Too bad, but not, IMO, something that is sufficiently disastrous, or likely to be sufficiently frequent, that we should shape policy around it.

   john


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]