Section 2.4 of draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter]

Ran,

We aren't really so far apart. My problem with the current
text is that it looks a little like finger-pointing, which
the document explicitly aims to avoid. It has a flavour of
saying that the power is concentrated because the power holders
are bad people. I don't think that's intended, but it's how
it came across to me. Which is why I'd like the text tuned;
it doesn't have to be tuned exactly as I suggested.

> Delegation by IESG is one possible fix.
> Redistributing responsibility is another possible fix.

You're seeing a semantic difference that I didn't intend
by using the word "delegate". We probably agree about
the solution space, but that's out of scope right now.

  Brian

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> For what its worth, I disagree with Brian about Section 2.4.
> 
> I'm on the IAB (until I escape next month) and have had similar
> visibility into things (caveat: IAB chair sits on IESG telechats,
> so Brian has done that and I haven't).  I've also been a WG Chair
> whose had trouble advancing documents (OTP WG) in the past.
> 
> Brian's comments *presume* that the solution is IESG delegation,
> whereas the existing text says that the problem is concentration.
> 
> I agree that the problem is concentration (among other things,
> many former and some current IESG folks say it creates too much
> workload for the IESG members).
> 
> Delegation by IESG is one possible fix.
> Redistributing responsibility is another possible fix.
> Other potential fixes likely also exist.
> 
> I don't want to presume any particular fix, just note that too
> much workload in one place is currently a problem.  In effect,
> we have an existence proof that the current organisational schema
> does not scale in practice.
> 
> So I very much like the current text.
> 
> Ran