On Mar 6, 2018, at 4:29 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:So while I agree that running the IETF consensus process isn't
formally needed for IESG statements, and ought not be needed, I'd
hate to see the IESG not seeking or properly handing, or even
worse, ignoring, feedback from the community on some draft IESG
statement/policy.
Right. I didn't say that. Probably your clarification was needed, but I think what I said was roughly the same as what you said. The IESG has access to confidential information that would not be
appropriate to share with the IETF as a whole. That's the job we
appoint them to do.
What Joel said - confidential ombusteam information is not sharedwith the IESG.
Again, a useful clarification. Nevertheless, the IESG does have more information than we do, and this is somewhat necessary, not only from a practical perspective, but also because while they do not and should not have access to what the ombudsteam knows, if history is any guide they _do_ know more than we do.
|
