>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> However, if your concern is really to make sure that there
John> is a timely appeal path, I have a suggestion that might be
John> acceptable to everyone without causing unfortunate
John> side-effects. We simply require that, if the ISE receives
John> input from the IESG requesting specific changes to a
John> document ("specific changes" including, but not limited to,
John> so-called "IESG Notes") and the ISE and authors decide to
John> not incorporate those proposed changes, the ISE is required
John> to explain to the IESG, in writing, why not and allow a
John> reasonable period of time for the IESG to respond. If it
John> felt it were necessary, the IESG could then open a further
John> discussion, ask the RSE to mediate, or launch a formal
John> request for IAB review. Consistent with other provisions in
John> RFC 4846, either the IESG or the ISE could, at their
John> discretion, make the correspondence (the request and
John> response) public.
John, in principle, I would be delighted by this option if you made a few more changes to make the RFC process more accountable:
1) Open up the rfc-editorial board so that it was selected by some sort of nomcom/community process. That nomcom could of course draw from a broader community than the IETF as a whole
2) Provide an appeals path for IAB decisions related to the RFC-editor function
I have a lot more faith in the IETF process than I do the RFC editor
process. I believe that the RFC editor process is more open to a
different type of abuse than the IESG process, but I believe we have a
far more open process for addressing problems with the IESG than we do
with IAB decisions about the RFC editor or with the RFC editor process
itself.
However, absent these changes, I don't believe there would be
appropriate checks and balances present.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf