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

[Randy Bush]

> 2) You did not explain who is left, after you dismiss the worth
> of authors, wgs and chairs, and

once again, i did not dismiss anyone's worth.  i said your proposal
did.

> 3) what is it, for example, about "community based criteria" that
> will not scale.

nothing.  asking the iesg to be  the only enforcer of them will not
scale.

> And what is it you are suggesting as an alternative that a) is
> practical, b) WILL scale, and c) is acceptable to the IETF
> community (ie, the folks on whose behalf area directors are
> supposed to operate)?

unlike some here, i don't think i have all the answers.  i am still
trying to understand the root problems, hence my participation in
the problem-statement list and my basing most of my comments on my
admittedly small and narrow personal experience and view not
theory.

but as i have previously suggested, i suspect we can not scale and
produce quality without saying "no" to some things, as tempting as
doing everything may be, and without building quality and review
into the whole system, from inception through the wgs, through last
calls and final review, whether that be iesg or whatever the world
becomes.

if we come to agreement that producing quality and scaling are two
core problems, then i think there is some organizational and
management experience from within the computer industry and outside
from which we can draw some ideas on quality management etc.  but i
don't think we've reached consensus that these are the issues yet.

randy