I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt

[Eric Rosen]

> 5.1 Near-Term Improvements
...
>          5. Modify IESG-internal processes to make it impossible for one
>             or two IESG members to block a document.

Brian> There is a strong implication here that ADs might do this for
Brian> spurious reasons. 

Well, yes, that's the "problem".

Brian> But if one or both Security ADs are deeply
Brian> convinced that a draft constitutes a major security risk, or one
Brian> or both Routing ADs are convinced that a draft will lead to routing
Brian> loops, isn't it quite appropriate for them to block the document?
Brian> Such cases suggest failures much earlier in the process, not 
Brian> misbehaviour by the IESG. So I don't think we should fix this, 
Brian> because it is actually a vital back-stop, not a bug. 

You  can't remove a  problem by  declaring it  not to  be a  problem; that's
called  a "whitewash".  And  the fact  that the  ADs sometimes  act properly
doesn't mean that they don't sometimes act improperly. 

The problem  is that there  is no effective  and open process by  which such
decisions can be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether they are proper
or improper.