A better management/technical split that I can see would be exemplified by the recent proposal of an anti-harassment statement (q.v.). At the moment it is the IESG's responsibility to produce such statements and it is currently the IESG's responsibility to hear appeals etc. That *seems* like a very different task from reviewing documents or keeping a WG within charter and working to its millstones. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joel M. > Halpern > Sent: 20 October 2013 20:55 > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: John C Klensin; IETF Discuss > Subject: Re: Separate ADs roles from IESG > > The obvious risk if one separates WG management from review is that one > could easily get the situation where the manager, in working with the > WG, says that the document needs X, Y, and not Z. And then the reviewer > says "needs Z". And there are more extreme versions of this. > Currently, the ability for the managing AD to say "no, this won't pass > muster" is part of his management tool. If he is not the reviewer, he > seems to have lost an important tool. I hope I am missing something > that would make this sort of approach workable.