Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:
Re: Doing the Right Things?)
John C Klensin
john-ietf at jck.com
Mon Jun 9 16:59:17 CEST 2003
--On Monday, 09 June, 2003 15:02 -0400 "Bound, Jim"
<Jim.Bound at hp.com> wrote:
> maybe we should make a list of what the ideal IESG member and
> the group should do and how they behave as IESG with IESG
> hats? this way it is not finger pointing.
> but saying there is no fix needed for the IESG is simply not
> dealing with reality IMO. There are problems and they are all
> not perceived.
I didn't suggest that the IESG didn't need some "fixing".
> If all we are going to do is fix everything but the IESG I am
> going to leave this list because the goal of fixing the IETF
> will not get done.
> The IESG needs a fix. I don't know what it is but it needs
> fixing as other parts of our community.
Ok. But there are two types of fixes:
(i) Going to the IESG and saying "please do this
differently". This works iff the IESG is receptive. If
the IESG is not receptive, the evidence is that the
request will have no effect: we have no mechanism
(perhaps fortunately) for carting off to jail for
violating the procedures.
(ii) Removing or abolishing the [entire] IESG and
replacing them/it with a structure that is more
responsive to community desires and whims.
Personally, I don't think we are at the point where the second
is necessary. Your impressions and opinion may differ. But I
think it is very important that we distinguish between the two
as we try to sort through problems, procedures, and desired
More information about the Problem-statement