IESG procedures (Re: what is a problem)

[Paul Hoffman / IMC]

At 8:50 AM -0500 11/27/02, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>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

It doesn't have to be done by the IESG. It can be done by interested 
non-IESG folks, and edited by the IESG. That is, *we* can make a 
first guess about what we think the procedures are. It will be 
interesting to see how big the deltas are when the IESG starts to 
edit them.

>         - The time required to formally modify the procedures when
>                 they are not working properly

That delay will happen regardless of the writing down of the procedures.

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

Again, maybe the non-IESG can do that, based on what we think the 
IESG charter already is (not what we think it should be).

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium