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

John C Klensin john-ietf at
Mon Jun 9 16:59:17 CEST 2003

--On Monday, 09 June, 2003 15:02 -0400 "Bound, Jim" 
<Jim.Bound at> 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 mailing list