A 100.000 foot perspective on "what is the problem"

[Dave Crocker]

Pete,

Monday, December 16, 2002, 12:57:42 PM, you wrote:
>>(Of course, the PACT document will solve this by simply not allowing
>>another AD from blocking a draft. So in the case where some future 
>>applications AD doesn't care about security, they will be able to 
>>ram a document through the IESG over the security AD's objections, 
>>unless the security ADs' can muster a near unanimous objections from 
>>all the other IESG members. This is a feature? I'm not convinced....)

Pete> I cannot start to describe how much the above disturbs me. It's not 
Pete> because you used

It bothers me for a very different reason:  The PACT proposal very clearly
is designed to PREVENT excessive leverage by any single AD.  Hence, there is
no "ramming through" anything, nor is there any one-AD vetoing.

PACT goes back to the construct of consensus, with an assumption that the
cognizant area director(s) have spent the most time on the topic and,
therefore, should have the dominant role.

However it takes BOTH cognizant area directors OR it takes the bulk of the
other ADs, to get something through.

Hence, anything that can get a strong consensus within the IESG overcomes
the whimsey of any individual AD, whether for passing or blocking.

With respect to the reference to the reduced leverage of a Security AD:  If
the Security AD cannot convince the bulk of the IESG that a proposal needs
work, then why should the Security AD's view be a controlling factor?

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850