On 11/3/2013 3:35 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
In effect I believe we’re delegating.
Ahh. OK.
So you can point to the IETF document that indicates that this sort of
thing has been delegated? I certainly hope that you are not suggesting
that the IESG was delegated authority to choose to do whatever it wants,
no matter how laudable what it wants might be.
The only documents I know of, concerning IESG scope of work, have
nothing to do with setting IETF personnel policies by fiat.
so if you believe we’re doing to much you should account for that.
Joel, you have the responsibilities here reversed, absent something that
delegates along the lines of "the IESG can do anything it wants".
The affirmative action here is being taken by the IESG. The IESG
therefore needs to establish that it has authority to do this without
IETF consensus. This is not a nit-picky point; it is a fundamental
question of IESG scope of authority.
A less temporary construct of the ombudsman should be expected
> construct more explicit policy around their way of working, I don’t
think it’s a good idea for non-experts (myself included) to spend a lot
> of time on that until there is one for us to consider.
1. I've no idea what the above means.
2. The IESG anti-harassment pronouncement refers to an Ombudsman, but I
cannot find any other documentation about it. Perhaps you can provide a
pointer.
3. "less temporary"? huh?
I believe that the IESG can get this wrong, which is why we
shouldn’tbe dictating the detailed mechanics.
1. I have no idea what the above means.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net