Ted, if you are correct, you are referring to something less than
obvious. The IESG as a body does NOT, as I understand the rules, have
access to details of harrasment complaints.
More importantly, this policy as described is not motivated by anything
that would be confidential information known to the IESG.
As a general rule, yes, Meeting policy is subject to community (rough)
consensus. In emergencies, I expect our leadership to make what calls
need to be made. But this is NOT an emergency.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/5/18 11:41 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Mar 5, 2018, at 11:36 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx
<mailto:randy@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
this is the 'we know better than you' mantra of authoritarian
governments. the iesg should have _extremely_ little confidential
information.
Yes. But the confidential information that it /should/ have is precisely
the confidential information that would motivate this policy.
And unlike an authoritarian government, they did include us in the
process, and have been remarkably patient and transparent in engaging
with the community on it.
And, the policies that they shouldn't control, they don't. The IESG
can't tell us what to publish. If they do, we have an appeals process,
and a nomcom process. Indeed, if we are really offended by this new
policy, we can try to throw the bums out in the next nomcom. But I
don't think "we, the IETF" actually are. The squeaky wheels are, and
that's as it should be, but one hopes that they aren't the only ones who
provide nomcom with feedback.
