Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:Doingthe
randy at psg.com
Mon Jun 9 00:07:31 CEST 2003
> 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
More information about the Problem-statement