Hiya, On 10/04/2020 22:42, Joseph Touch wrote: > > >> On Apr 10, 2020, at 2:37 PM, Stephen Farrell >> <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 10/04/2020 22:13, S Moonesamy wrote: >>> Hi Joel, At 01:06 PM 10-04-2020, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>> We have a long tradition of people in positions of leadership >>>> also participating as individuals. Just because Joe thinks it >>>> doesn't work does not mean it is not true. It has weaknesses. >>>> We all know that. >>> >>> I noticed that the tradition is formulated as a principle laid >>> down by an authority in other venues. I don't know whether the >>> persons doing that are aware of the weaknesses. >> >> FWIW, I wouldn't get too hung up on this point. A lot of the time >> ADs (or recent ex-ADs) are the ones writing drafts like these >> because nobody else cares really - it's just that ADs see these >> issues crop up over and over and tend to want to fix 'em;-) >> >> S. > I kind of agree with one of your points below:-) > Issues of note to the IESG should be offered by the IESG as a whole. It wasn't the one above. I don't know what you even mean. Asking that the IESG reach consensus on everything they do before they run something by the community seems to me like a pretty bad plan. > > FWIW, it’s also possible that this little echo-chamber sees what it > things are huge problems that the rest of us don’t need to burn > cycles trying to fix, too. That's a fair point yes. (Well, the "echo-chamber" part is egregious, but otherwise it's fair.) That doesn't mean that the proposals are always wrong though. (In this case, I don't really care enough about the specifics so would be neither for nor against the draft itself.) Cheers, S. > > Joe > >
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
