>> >>Yes, I* opinions are afforded special status. They are our chosen >>leadership, and with leadership comes responsibility. Responsibility >>to be sure that if the work goes forward, it is well scoped, has a >>reasonable likelyhood of success, etc. And please remember, the IETF >>is a meritocracy. So please don't raise the "I* has special status" >>issue as if it were some kind of unfair or biased way of doing things. Knowing Thomas pretty well, I think this is just an unfortunate juxtaposition of two different statements. The IETF, as a whole, values technical input (rather than raw voting). Statements which are backed by analysis, careful thought, and reasoned arguments will be given more weight than a +1 on a mailing list. As 3935 states, the IETF is committed to taking that input from anyone: "the issues on which the IETF produces its documents are issues where the IETF has the competence needed to speak to them, and that the IETF is willing to listen to technically competent input from any source". The weight assigned is from all concerned, but it is up to the working group chair/ADs to assess the community's reaction to a proposal or other technical input. They assess, in some form, how the community weights the technical arguments. So the IETF leadership is, in effect, given a responsibility related to that assessment. That does not mean the IETF leadership is itself a meritocracy; it's not. The IESG and IAB are picked by NomComs for a variety of skills and "fit" is a critical one. Someone who can fit into the team the NomCom is building may be selected over someone who is equal or better in any or all of our technical disciplines, because of the need to balance skills, personalities, and time commitments. This last is a particularly important point, as the IETF is led, fundamentally, by people who have the will, time, and resources to dedicate to that effort. There will likely always be people who have more "merit" on some objective scale than those who are selected, but who cannot serve because they lack time or support. In assessing an IESG or IAB member's reaction to a document, BoF proposal, I think we should consider the *time* they put into it; each has dedicated significant time to getting an overall context for the IETF, which may involve knowledge of what the competing proposals for attention are and other dragons in the upcoming road. That may give weight to their opinion, but it has to be matched by time spent on analysis of the specifics. An IESG member who puts a discuss on a document with "this feels wrong" is given considerable pressure to make an actionable statement instead, with a real analysis backing it; the same is or should be true for statements during a BoF or WG meeting. For an AD to say: "I don't see community consensus on this, here's how you could demonstrate it" is more than fair; it is actionable. For an AD to say "I don't see how this would get deployment, so I don't want to spend IETF cycles on it, here's what it would take to demonstrate it could get deployed" is also actionable. But neither statement relies on a "meritocracy", they rely on management. For *anyone* to say "I don't think this is technically correct or the optimal solution" will require the same analysis, careful thought, and reasoned analysis that is the hallmark of good IETF input. That includes statements by members of the IESG or IAB. It will also require follow-up, and continued engagement on the technical solution; if it doesn't, then the community needs a statement on why the IESG or IAB don't think the problem is worth the time. In other words, if there won't be *technical* engagement, there needs to be a clear management reason given for that. BoFs have been hard in this space for a long time. But since they are how the IETF remains a technical vital, relevant place to do work, I think they are worth the time it takes to respond to proponents, either technically or as a management issue, on why they are or are not going forward. regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf