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

Dave Crocker dhc at
Mon Jun 9 00:27:37 CEST 2003


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

RB> i am amazed that you have such a hard time understanding.

You shouldn't be.

>> 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.

RB> your paragraph you keep forgetting:

>> represents a broader view -- with the IESG enforcing it, rather
>> than inventing it.           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's really excellent.  Ignore the opening sentence:

DC>The IESG can and must provide a quality control mechanism.

but jump on a later sentence as if there were no context.

Yes, it is difficult to imagine why anyone would have trouble
understanding your meaning.

RB> <whine>
RB>excuse that i don't have the free time on my hands to go around

Not too pressed for time to have a bit more constructive fun, it would

Thanks for your help in developing a constructive exchange. When you say
"i am still trying to understand the root problems," you demonstrate an
inventive approach to the exploration.

Anyone would feel strongly encouraged to participate.

 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list