IESG procedures (Re: what is a problem)

[Pete Resnick]

On 12/10/02 at 4:52 PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:

>At 08:56 AM 11/27/2002 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>What is the harm in writing down the current policies and 
>>procedures of the IESG?

Actually, I wrote that, not Harald.

>the historical concern has been that some of our more colorful 
>contributors would then want a detailed tally of the vote, and would 
>then go after an AD that seemed to "not like them" (which might be 
>for all sorts of good reasons like "they have ideas that don't work" 
>or "... and they don't want to fix them", which are surprisingly 
>common cases) in the nomcom or otherwise make trouble.

If the only thing that a WG hears out of an AD is "you have ideas 
that don't work" or "... and you don't want to fix them" without a 
detailed explanation of why it is that the AD believes that, trouble 
*should* be gone after in the nomcom or otherwise make trouble (e.g., 
appeal). If one of the more "colorful contributors" does go to the 
nomcom and complain about an AD, they should easily be able to say, 
"OK, show us the written statement where this AD made a stupid 
decision and we'll consider it." If detailed feedback did come from 
individual ADs, it would probably make the nomcom's job easier and 
the "colorful contributors" attempts to corrupt the process much more 
difficult.

>The last thing the IESG has historically wanted to do was recreate 
>itself as a whipping boy.

Ummm, seems to me you're too late. If some of the comments on this 
list indicate anything, it's that the IESG has made itself the 
whipping boy by not being more open about its processes. If folks 
knew what exactly the IESG was doing, I think they would be less 
likely to complain about "mysterious outcomes".

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102