Hi Jari, Wes,
There was the following in this thread:
"It's also the case that in general we usually try to figure out what's
inside black boxes by shaking them, tilting them, and basically trying
to affect the inside of the box in ways that force it to reveal
something about its contents. I've personally been reluctant to try to
figure out what's inside this black box because I've been worried that
the process of working through it might lead to bruising or other
damage, which I did not want to cause to happen. This may have looked
like disengagement or lack of concern, and for that I apologize, both to"
A committee turns into a disengaged committee when it adopts the
above approach. The IAB is not one person. From what I read,
several IAB members viewed the RFC Editor as a function which they
did not have to understand.
It is unlikely that the problem happened overnight. Were you
provided with the right information? I doubt it as the consensus of
the IAB was to ignore what was going on. The consequence is that the
IAB would not be able to identify an undesirable future outcome.
I'll use the word "you" in general. In my opinion, you are expected
to have access to more information as you are on the inside. If you
are unduly concerned about asking questions which might lead to
bruising, it could be that you are more interested in being seated on
the platform in front of the room instead of interacting at peer level.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
