A couple of comments, with the understanding that Brian and are
in substantial agreement about all of this and complete
agreement about the things I've left out.
--On Friday, 09 February, 2007 17:44 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
>> That's apparently a side effect of the "must vote YES" rule.
>> One part of it is clear, don't waste the time of the complete
>> IESG if the memo isn't in a shape for serious considerations.
>> But it's a bad rule if the AD "only" doesn't like the memo,
>> while others could think it's okay.
>
> True, if the NomCom appoints bad ADs...
IMO, it is also why we have a recall procedure, no matter how
hard it is to invoke. There is, IMO, a difference between an
AD who periodically exerts bad judgment (even if there is
community consensus that the judgment is bad) and an AD who
becomes abusive. If a single AD does not like a document, but
the rest of the IESG is happy with it, there are always ways to
work that out (and I note that there are two ADs in every area
now) and appeals as a backup. If an AD is so opposed as to
become abusive, despite generally IESG agreement that the
document is ok, then I would guess that that particular AD's
opposition will rarely be an isolated case of difficult behavior
and the broader problem becomes worth solving.
>...
>> Ask another AD ? Your draft tries to block that escape hatch.
>
> Perhaps for ternary arithmetic, but not for something that
> really belongs to another Area.
Or, presumably, that could be handled by anther AD in the same
area. If the nomcom has done a competent job, and both ADs in
an area are opposed to a document, then either the doc author
has a problem or...
>> Try "independent" ? John's draft tries to block that too.
>
> No
No. We shall see what that draft says when the IAB gets
finished with it, but the restrictions there very much have to
do with not having failed IETF documents bounced over without
some critical work. Individual submissions are not IETF
documents in that sense, so there should really be no issue.
As a piece of free and very general advice, and speaking
personally (not for the RFC Editor or the Ed Board), if I tried
to take a document, individually, to some AD and got hard
pushback, I'd assume that pushback would reappear when the RFC
Editor sent the document over for RFC 3932 review. And then,
before taking the document in under "independent", I'd advise
editing/ revising it to make it as IESG-proof as possible. That
would involve making sure it didn't sound like a standards-track
protocol spec, didn't ask for IANA actions, and, if the reason
for the AD rejection was because the document was critical of an
IETF decision or direction, it was clearly written as a balanced
critical analysis rather than a proposal that someone could
point to and say "evil".
>...
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf