On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: > It gives the IESG an exemption to participating in WG and IESG last call processes, which then frustrates the rest of the community that does not have this opportunity. You could equally say that the IETF last call frustrates the WG process, since a document can fail IETF last call, and this can be extremely frustrating for working groups. Witness the fiasco in the MIF working group when they tried to advance a DHCP route option, for example. The IETF last call process is important, but it's not a panacea. Too many documents come through the last call process for each one to get thorough review by every IETF participant. The IESG are effectively the sacrificial lambs of the IETF who have to read every single document on the IETF track that makes it through last call. When you say that the IESG should not get special treatment, I think you are misunderstanding what is special about the treatment the IESG gets. What is special is that we are expected to review every document. We could impose that requirement on the IETF as a whole. If all IETF participants were willing to do that, then IETF review might well be effective enough to eliminate the need for the IESG. But I don't think that's a realistic expectation, and I do not mean that as a criticism. What you would have accomplished if you did this would be to have turned every IETF participant into an AD, working 35 hours a week on document review.