Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:34:22PM -0400, John Leslie wrote: >> >> The sad truth is, the IESG no longer has the spare cycles to "Just >> say No." > > I was on the receiving end of an IESG that simply stalled a document > until the WG changed its approach, because of IETF concerns, so I > disagree with that claim. By all means, volunteer for an IESG position if you disagree... > But if it is true, then we might as well give up. It is clearly true that IESG agendas are growing longer. I have to _beg_ to get the five-minute break observed, sometimes. > If there's weak IETF consensus (with some strong objections) > to a document that comes from a WG and has strong consensus inside the > WG, the _only_ people who can say no are the IESG; and they must. There are a lot more people who say the IESG MUST NOT say No without giving a convincing reason. In practice, it comes down to the Responsible AD. If s/he can find the cycles, the rest of the IESG can support him/her; otherwise the pressure to clear a DISCUSS becomes overwhelming. We are no longer in the days when it was common for one DISCUSS to hold up a document for many months. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>