At 10:50 AM -0700 6/19/08, Russ Housley wrote: > >That seems to be the crux of the appeal. Does every possible thing >upon which an AD can raise a DISCUSS position need to align with a >written rule? Don't we select leaders because we have some >confidence in their judgement? > >Russ Russ, This is casting the problem in ways that continue to miss the point. Of course we expect individual Area Directors to exercise judgement, and we expect the IESG as a body to do the same. But we also expect them to exercise due care in listening to the folks actually doing the work, and not over-rule them when they clearly have considered the issues. In this case, John's appeal makes clear that the folks writing the document considered the issue and made a decision to value continuity. A DISCUSS position to reconfirm that in light of an Area Director's concerns would be valid (and probably welcome); once confirmed though, it should get dropped. Otherwise, it over-rules a community decision with the individual technical judgement of the Area Director. There are very few cases where that is okay. It applies when there is a documented, larger community consensus that the WG or submission group decision ignores (a working group decision that congestion control wasn't important would get pushback on this front, for example). It applies when the Area Director can demonstrate harm to the Internet as a result of the decision; the "can demonstrate" there, though, is to the *community* not just to himself or the IESG. It applies when the Area Director can demonstrate that the proposal simply *does not work* to the satisfaction of the larger community, no matter what the proposers believe. Most DISCUSS don't need to meet any of those tests because the WGs or proposers agree that the issues need to be addressed, so there is no over-ride present. That's good, because over-riding the considered technical judgement of the folks doing the work doesn't just generate appeals, it drives folks away. The extent to which the current IESG is sliding back into substituting its technical judgement for the WGs' is a worrying trend that I've already pointed out. This appeal may seem to be on a small point in a single document, but the issue is quite fundamental. The IETF can drive itself into irrelevance very quickly by appearing to be driven by ex cathedra pronouncements; even the Pope has done that only once since his infallibility was declared doctrine. Doing so constantly over things where the AD's opinion is not backed by community consensus is currently getting you an appeal. The next step could well be reformation. I hope the IESG considers John's appeal in this light and responds promptly to the issues he has raised. Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf