Brian E Carpenter wrote: > It seems fairly clear in RFC 2418 section 6.1: >|"The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions, >| on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working >| group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the >| IETF. The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in >| making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when >| circumstances warrant such an intervention." > So the AD *does* have authority *when circumstances warrant*, but > only on matters of process and staffing. And actually only "authority to assist in making those decisions", on request or on their own initiave. > this rule doesn't allow an AD to take technical decisions > unilaterally, but does allow an AD to make a consensus call if for > some reason the WG Chairs can't do so. Yes. Anybody including Chairs and ADs is free to start some kind of poll, and it's up to the Chairs to decide if the outcome reflects a WG consensus. > the quote above does seem to allow an AD to take over for a WG > chair as far as running the discussion is concerned, exceptionally. Sure, for a WG meeting where the Chairs are absent somebody can be the meeting Chair, and if an AD, former AD, or anybody else with a clue about what's needed (agenda, minutes, jabber, etc. ) volunteers it's good. And of course it's better when the WG Chairs do this, in two cases I've watched that it took Harald about 20 minutes to post the draft minutes, complete as working "visible on any browser" PDF. >> if an important author of drafts in a WG volunteers to be an AD >> and gets the job it's ugly if that would force them to give up >> their I-Ds. All areas (excl. "gen") have two ADs, that offers >> some leaway. > That's where recusals come from. Recusals are okay, and losing an editor can be bad (from a WG's POV, maybe the editor is happy to have a good excuse to give up on the I-Ds :-) > And the General AD is at liberty to find another AD to sponsor his > or her BOFs or drafts. I did that. The general area should have two ADs, it could be quite overwhelming for the new AD otherwise. No issue this time, Russ is supposed to know what kind of informal infrastructure he inherited in addition to the stuff you've documented in the procdoc ION. I'd need an hour only to list what I've seen... Okay, I'm a slow typist. ;-) In another article you wrote: | Ah, but if the WG *agrees* to accept the AD's decision, that's OK. | The rules in 2418 certainly allow an AD to ask a stuck WG "Will you | let me decide?". That's very different from deciding unilaterally. Yes, ADs and Chairs should be free to contribute like everybody else. But if they use magic words like "WG consensus", "publication request", "hat on", etc. they better make sure that it doesn't trigger appeals. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf