IESG procedures (Re: what is a problem)

[Margaret Wasserman]

>We (both the IESG and the IETF as a whole) ARE moving from being a body of 
>"people trusted to try to do the right thing" (and make up procedures to 
>match) to a body of "people trusted to execute the documented procedures".

Since the IESG gets to make up the procedures, these are very close to
the same thing.  The major difference is how much you communicate to the
rest of the IETF regarding what procedures you are using, so that we
can hold you accountable for using them fairly.

>But I think that this move has real costs associated with it as well as 
>benefits.

Yes, there are two costs:

         - The time required to document and explain the procedures
         - The time required to formally modify the procedures when
                 they are not working properly

There are also similar costs associated with the IESG's effort to develop
tighter and more limited charters for WGs.

It used to be that WG chairs were given a broad charter and were trusted to
try to do the right thing. But, the IESG has chosen to move away from that
position, and to exercise tighter control over WGs.

Why would that same IESG be surprised that the community would like to
formally charter the IESG and exercise tighter control over them?

Margaret