Keith Moore wrote: > Martin Rex wrote: > > > > IMHO, the IESG is not (and maybe never was?) a committee where_each_ > > member reviews_all_ of the work, where_each_ forms his very own opionion, > > and where all of them caste a VOTE at the end, so that the diversity > > within that committee would be vitally beneficial (to anything). > > IESG is the review body of last resort. When WGs do a poor job of > review, especially cross-area review, the burden falls on IESG to take > up the slack. As I understand and see it, the IESG is running IETF processes, is mentoring IETF processes (towards WG Chairs, BOFs, individuals with complaints/appeals), and is trying to keep an eye on the overall architecture, and put togethe the pieces from reviews they obtain from their trusted reviewers, such as directorates. > > The idea that IESG shouldn't actually do review is naive in the extreme, Huh? I believe I never said nor implied this, and certainly never meant something like that. I also don't see how _more_ reviews could make things worse. I believe it would be naive to expect IESG to perform reviews all by their own, either not asking for or ignoring all other input and then VOTE in committe style. The way the IETF positions are defined and filled, biases of various ways are _inevitable_. They solution to this is to set up processes in a fashion that will produce good results even where there is strong bias of various kinds -- aka "lack of diversity" -- by distributing the work to other IETF leadership positions besides IESG and by putting in place controls that will likely notice and object when IESG decisions seem to exhibit bias, and procedures to deal with this. But once you structure processes&controls and distribute work in a fashion that makes it resilient to bias in I* positions, the whole issue of diversity will be much less of an issue for those positions. > > given the brokenness of IETF's structure. Brokenness usually suggests defects that could have reasonably been avoided. While there are certainly a number of features that each come at a cost, I'm not aware of an actual brokenness of the IETF's structure, i.e. something that could have been reasonably been avoided without loosing any benefits. -Martin