appeal mechanisms was Re: Ombuds-process
Keith Moore
moore at cs.utk.edu
Tue Jul 1 12:33:27 CEST 2003
] Keith> But whenever a WG submits a document that the WG's AD doesn't like,
] Keith> in most cases this is because the WG has failed to get broad
] Keith> consensus on a document.
]
] Well, I understand that that's your story and you're sticking to it. But
] can you provide a reason for anyone to believe this?
The AD is trying to make sure that the document is of high technical quality
and does not cause problems. The surest way for the document to cause
problems is for the WG to fail to consider interests outside of the immediate
focus of the WG. This happens all the time.
] Or do you mean it to
] be a tautology, i.e., "broad consensus" means "the AD likes it"?
ADs don't like things that cause problems for them, and some of the most
difficult problems are those which require them to play Solomon and sort out
conflicts between distant interests. So an AD is much more likely to like a
document if there is a broad consensus supporting it. And believe it or not,
ADs are sensitive to public opinion, so if an AD has a personal bias against a
document a broad supporting consensus is likely to cause the AD to set aside
that bias.
] Keith> to some degree engineering judgement is and must be subjective, so it
] Keith> may be perfectly valid for an AD to reject a document on such
] Keith> grounds.
]
] In areas where different engineers might reasonably come to different
] judgments, it is not appropriate for the IESG to substitute its own judgment
] for the WG consensus.
That's where you're dead wrong. WGs are too narrowly focused to be entrusted
to impose their own judgement on the whole community. But a WG that takes
the trouble to do its homework and accomodate outside interests is far more
likely to be able persuade an AD (and the IESG as a whole) that it's proposal
is in the interest of the whole community.
Keith
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list