A question about the role of the IESG

[Dave Crocker]

Jonne,

You might want to carefully read assorted documents available via
<http://www.ietf.org, before making the sort of sweeping assessment you
offer.

As to your question about choice, one place you might look is:

         <http://www.brandenburg.com/ietf/ietf-stds.html#StdWay30>

The rest of that article may also be helpful.

d/

Friday, December 20, 2002, 6:05:12 PM, you wrote:
Jonne> According the current processes, and practices in the IETF it seems that the IESG has almost unlimited power over the IETF. The IESG is not really accountable to the IETF community (e.g.
Jonne> meeting minutes are not public and only the collective decisions are communicated), the IESG has no responsibility towards the general public of the IETF, and it is seen as the management of
Jonne> the IETF. In the current model, the IESG supervises, and has control over the work of the community, and the WGs execute the operative work. This is somewhat parallel to the model of a company
Jonne> where the responsibility is always upwards. In general, this is rather unique arrangement in a community environment.

Jonne> I was just wondering, how this operative model was chosen, and why this is seen as a more effective model than models used in other SDOs where the community steers itself without hierarchical
Jonne> management?


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