Speaking as 1/16th of the voting IESG ...
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:52 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Monday, September 24, 2018 17:09 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I meant to reply to John Klensin's message about the -00
> draft, but failed to do so. So I think that this draft is
> correct in its analysis and proposals, based on quite a few
> years experience, not just on the recent appeal.
>
> As for the "the tradeoff between good sense and
> rule-following" that John mentioned: yes. We should always be
> able to adapt our rules when appropriate, since we made them.
> As long as the IESG consults the community, of course.
Brian,
Thanks.
As to your last comment, I strongly agree, but see how that is
done as another matter for discretion and good sense. I expect
the IESG to weigh the gravity, scope, and precedent-setting of
any particular decision and match the way in which the community
is asked accordingly. I think it would be a disaster if the
IESG concluded (or was forced) that it needed to run a four-week
Last Call on every decision. There are certainly topics on which
an announcement in an "anyone with a severe problem with this
should comment within a few days" note should be more than
sufficient. If they get it wrong, we have and should be able to
utilize appeals, the Nomcom, and the recall process.
Yeah, and I think part of figuring out what needs proactive consultation with the community, and what the IESG is pretty sure the community agrees with, is part of the good judgement you're hoping for.
We may get it wrong, and in a perfect world, we'd have appeals when we get it wrong - that's what they're for.
And as you point out, appeals are not the only tool to resolve the cases where we get it wrong. But the community can start there.
Thanks,
Spencer
