On 2011-07-28 12:51, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > So, you arguing that all DISCUSSes by ADs are indeed justified and necessary. No. I said exactly the opposite: "Sometimes there are inappropriate DISCUSSes and those need to be pointed out when they happen." > It is great to hear that our leadership They are not our leadership; they are members of our community performing a service role for the rest of us. > is completely unbiased with regard to technology, I didn't say that; they are human. > does not follow their own (or a company) agenda, I didn't say that. In my experience this is pretty rare in IESG discussions, compared to the blatant company position-pushing I have often seen in WG discussions. But again, they are human. That's why part of the NomCom's job is balancing the membership as much as possible. > misjudge their expertise in a certain area, I didn't say that; they are human. > showed long delays in responding, I didn't say that; they are human. > etc. > > As a document author I remember a couple of cases where certain ADs showed "interesting" behavior. So do I. But your name is on 44 RFCs - a couple of cases is not really surprising. > As Jari said at the plenary it is difficult to talk about this topic without going into specific cases but on the other hand we don't want to upset individuals either. > Hence, the story is difficult. > > My suggestion: Talk to the Nomcom if you think that certain ADs treated you in an unfair way. Absolutely agreed. The NomCom needs an overview of this. Brian > Ciao > Hannes > > On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary: >> >> Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see >> numerous "no objection" or missing ballot responses. >> >> Secondly, the drafts are de facto reviewed by review teams >> these days (gen-art, security area, etc.). This serves to alert >> the ADs if a draft really needs careful review. The workload is >> more reasonable than it used to be. >> >> Thirdly, when I was in the IESG, I was surprised quite often by >> *glaring* errors that had not been picked up before. Somebody has >> to be responsible for catching these, and today it's the IESG. >> >> Fourthly, because of the exact same discussion that Glen raised in >> plenary, the IESG defined and published its criteria for DISCUSS >> several years ago. Sometimes there are inappropriate DISCUSSes >> and those need to be pointed out when they happen. >> >> I hear the IESG members responding exactly right to this question. >> >> -- >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf