On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:23 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:20 PM Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:58:44PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > > Would the decision of an Area Director/IESG not to sponsor the
> > > draft be considered as behaviour that adversely affect the
> > > standardization process?
> >
> > No, because the concern seems to be about deciding the right venue
> > where *more input* can be put into the document.
>
> +1. AD decisions to not sponsor a draft are really not the sort of
> decisions that can be appealed. You've got two ADs per-area, if you
> can't get either of them, or any of the others, to sponsor your draft,
> then maybe you're doing things wrong. A BoF/WG seems like a fine
> starting point.
>
> I'd also like to second EKR's proposal that the IAB and IESG should get
> a first crack at policing themselves.
Is that something happening at this IESG retreat?
Two points here:
1. This was actually MSJ's suggestion on-list a few daya ago, though I think it's an interesting one.
2. I am no longer on the IESG, so not at the retreat.
-Ekr
> That wouldn't exclude a proper
> recall mechanism that can be initiated outside the IAB/IESG, but maybe
> we wouldn't need to make that mechanism too easy to start. Lastly, a
> mechanism for quickly dealing with frivolous petitions can make it
> tolerable to make starting a recall process too easy.
>
> Nico
> --
>
--
Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740
