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

[Dave Crocker]

Randy,

>> 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
seem.

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.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>