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

[Randy Bush]

> A suggestion that we have community-based criteria dismisses authors wgs
> and chairs?

i am amazed that you have such a hard time understanding.  but you seem
to have caught it later on in the message at only the third repetition.

> The formal statement about the IESG quality function is that it is a
> safety mechanism, to help when a working group has essentially running
> rogue. It is supposed to be a backup mechanism, not a primary mechanism.
> 
> That role is very different from being "the only enforcer" and I don't
> recall anyone -- certainly not me -- saying anything like "only" or
> "the" or any other such label of exclusivity.

your paragraph you keep forgetting:

> Still, we need to find reasonable, community based criteria --
> beyond just the criteria of the working group, so that it
> represents a broader view -- with the IESG enforcing it, rather
> than inventing it.           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<whine>
as i am on an 18 hour visit home between a week of us tour and now
a week in tokyo, and i have a <bleep>ing 07:15 conf call, please
excuse that i don't have the free time on my hands to go around
this one point as many times as you seem to.  but do have fun,
dave, do have fun.

randy