Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was: Re: Doing the Right Things?)

john.loughney at john.loughney at
Tue Jun 3 07:41:40 CEST 2003

Hi John,

> Summary: If we can't trust the current IESG for reform-process 
> management, we are in deep trouble.  If we are in that much 
> trouble, we should be postponing the little issues because we 
> need to be looking at very fundamental change, starting with 
> discarding the nomcom process and starting over on our selection 
> processes.   I don't believe that is that case, and don't 
> believe that the view that it is the case is generally held in 
> the community, but it is probably time to face the question.

Actually, at the moment, I don't think it matters if there is
a massive IESG conspiracy or not.  Trusting the IESG is irrelevant,
IMO.  One feature that has really become apparent to me is that 
the IESG is facing scaling problems.  If mails to ADs don't get
answered within a reasonable time because ADs suffer from too
much going on, I am not so sure adding to the IESG burden
will be a good thing.

Without any other better ideas, I think that having several
documents (drafts would be nice, but not required) for 
discussion at Vienna & a forum for that discussion would be
the way forward.  There needs to be a couple of administrative
assistants (or chairs, perhaps) to oversee this work, make
sure that everyone plays nicely & keeps everyone working 
in a forward direction.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list