> On Apr 10, 2020, at 5:56 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Joel, Joe, > > Personally, I don't see a way to separate this draft, and at > least my interpretation of Joe's comments, from a broader > situation. > > The last few months have seen two situations in which the IESG > has claimed extraordinary authority, developed a proposal > internally, and then presented it to the community. Agreed. My own concern is when some members have claimed extraordinary insight, developed a proposal, then either failed to propose it from their office (in this case) or tried to push it through IETF last call before even considering a first call to the AD’s own area WG (where the doc very clearly should have been homed anyway), Most reputable conferences are wise enough to prohibit their own chairs from submitting. Even when there are co-chairs who could arguably handle the case, the *perception* of a potential abuse of authority is usually enough to get most reasonable chairs to comply. Not so here in the IETF. Somehow, the idea persists that the mere removal of a virtual “hat” of such office is sufficient to absolve the appointee of their office, regardless of the relation of the “individual” contribution to that office. > … I think the community should feel better > about things in general because the IESG (and Barry > specifically) listened to input from the community and shifted > from a "do this by IESG Statement" plan to one of using a more > or less normal process for a BCP. That’s like feeling better that the conference chair submitted a paper with their student as first author. If the idea behind the RFC isn’t controversial, then going outside the expected process isn’t “normal”. It’s an end-run. .... > Again, those things (and probably others we might benefit from > having clearer rules and procedures about) are not because we > don't trust our leadership, We shouldn’t HAVE to. COI and other such policies exist to remove that need. Joe
