My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

[Ralph Droms]

So, Keith's explanation pre-supposes that an AD will vote "yes"
on a protocol action s/he has brought to the IESG.  Is that
in conflict with Scott's assertion that an AD overriding a
WG's consensus about a document is a violation of process?

Suppose the AD is the only IESG member who objects to a
protocol action?  Wouldn't the requirement that an AD
support a protocol action amount to giving the AD unilateral
veto power?

- Ralph

At 04:42 PM 4/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>> My understanding is that an AD does a preliminary review before
>> the IESG sees a doc.  What is the AD looking for - editorial
>> changes, fundamental problems with the protocol?
>
>you know the blurbs that come with the announcements that IESG has
>approved something or other?  the AD is filling in those blanks.
>the AD is supposed to make assertions that the working group followed
>the processes, and about the quality of the protocol and the document.
>
>in other words the AD is supposed to explain why he/she is voting
>"yes" for this protocol action, and why the document should be approved
>in the absence of objections from other IESG folks.
>
>Keith