On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 10:04:52AM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: > Adam, > > > On Aug 31, 2019, at 12:55 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This is a fair point. Is it your position that there is no supervision function intended to keep the discussion within the mailing list’s charter, aside from that required to tamp down abusive behavior? > > There has been a lot of discussion about this, but to answer your question. > > I don’t read any “supervision function" in RFC3005. It’s short and clear on what the it’s scope is. I'll add that when I served as S-A-A, I tried to use a very light touch, and the only goal that *I* understood the job involved was to tamp down abusive behavior. I'll also add that it probably helped that I didn't hold another IETF leadership role, since it never meant that there was any question of any conflict of interest that I might be trying to "supervise" some discussion that was, say, critical of the IESG as a body. To the extent that Ben also serves an Security AD, regardless of whether he is executing his role in good faith, when there comes a time people are questioning decisions by the IETF leadership, it's going to make it harder for him to fulfill his role as S-A-A. And please note that I am not arguing that he *has* abused his role; just that when faith in the IETF leadership might be lacking in some quarters, there may very well be a perception of abuse --- *especially* when trying to "manage" discussion might get perceived as a way of shutting down criticism of IETF leadership. If, in the future, there is a desire to open up RFC 3005 for improvements, one change which might be appropriate is a very strong suggestion to maintain a greater separation of roles to minimize the perception of conflicts of interest. Regards, - Ted
