The scope already says that the IESG is only supposed to comment on the
relationship to existing work. When the comments are on that topic,
there has rarely been an issue. (The one related difficulty is when the
IESG has asked for reasonable delays, to let a working group get its
product out, and then the WG has taken much longer than expected to
deliver.)
However, even then the editor has needed to edit the words provided. Of
course, such editing has to be negotiated with the IESG. (The edit can
edit, but he can't put words in someone elses mouth.)
Part of the problem I face is that there is significant evidence that
the IESG has unintentionally produced very biased and inappropriate
text. The ISE (RSE) needs to have a strong position from which to
discuss such things.
I will grant that an unreasonable ISE can do unreasonable things.
There is no history of difficulties in the converse.
If the ISE / RSE is unreasonable, the IAB will slap the editor and say
"stop doing that." There is no equivalent process if we reverse the
structure.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
Ben Campbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Making the IESG note mandatory, even if that required IETF agreement,
would essentially give the IETf veto over the Independent stream. The
IESG would simply propose a note so extreme that no author would
accept it on their document. Given that I have seen proposed notes
almost that bad in the past, I see no reason to believe it will not
happen in the future.
Unless we wish to gut the Independent Stream of its right and
important role of providing critical review of ongoing ideas, I would
strongly recommend that the IAB not accept any procedure by which this
would occur.
Remember, the IETF did not create the Independent Stream. It arguably
predates the existence of standards track documents.
So can the mandate be scoped? It seems like a little word smithing could
distinguish between "notes to clarify relationship with standards work"
vs "commentary on the quality of the work".
Yours,
Joel
Ben Campbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]
+1 , including the "IETF consensus call" part.
I don't understand how IETF consensus is relevant to a non-IETF
document.
Can't the IETF can have a consensus that a non-IETF document
relates to
other IETF work in some way?
Well, yes, but that's a decision we have historically chosen to
trust the IESG to take. I see no evidence that that has been a problem,
and I didn't think Jari was reopening that aspect.
Ah, sorry, I was agreeing with Brian Rosen statement that a
concensus call was okay. I didn't mean (and I doubt he did, but he
can speak for himself) that I think we _needed_ one, only that if
that were the only way we could make an IESG request "binding", then
it was okay. If we feel we can trust the IESG on this, I'm okay with
it :-)
In fact the answer to Jari's question appears to be a matter of
logic,
not of opinion. The IESG, which acts for the IETF, logically cannot
determine anything about the contents of a non-IETF document. So the
inclusion of an IESG note can only be a request.
How would you expect the RFC editor to evaluate such a request? Under
what circumstances would it be reasonable to refuse to include it?
Well, in the future it will be the Independent Series Editor. I would
expect him/her to take such a decision just like an academic journal
editor would decide how to deal with a critical review. I'd expect that
in the large majority of cases, the ISE would agree to the request,
and would only consider refusing it if he/she concluded that the
IESG was
showing unreasonable bias.
I assume an ISE could also who bias.
It seems to me this all converges on deciding who has to appeal in a
dispute.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf