IESG procedures (Re: what is a problem)

[Brian E Carpenter]

Pete Resnick wrote:
...
> 
> >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".

This approach sets up a lose-lose situation. Having sat in on many
IESG telechats while I was IAB chair, I can tell you that when it
comes to the final discussion and ballot on a draft, the IESG has
to discuss technical merit, but also the realistic probability of
getting a better document in finite time (if the document is of
dubious quality). And that inevitably becomes a discussion about
people, their abilities, and their history of productivity or
non-productivity. There are many reasons why those discussions
are held in private and aren't minuted. Pushing back on the IESG
on this is likely to produce a startling lack of willing
candidates for IESG slots; that way we all lose.

The win-win is where the community accepts that the IESG is
entitled and indeed obliged to hold such conversations privately.
And RFC 2026 and 2727 tell you what to do if you don't like the 
outcome.

Needless to say I applaud the ID-tracker and the RFC Editor queue
tracker, because they increase transparency of the mechanics of
document processing. Anything of that nature is good. But the actual 
decision process is another matter.

   Brian