Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was: Re: Doing
the Right Things?)
Jim.Bound at hp.com
Mon Jun 9 17:21:15 CEST 2003
Did not imply or say you did not think they don't need fixing. I think
"i" is the approach of course "ii" is not even in my mind.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf at jck.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 3:59 PM
> To: Bound, Jim; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process
> (was: Re: Doing the Right Things?)
> --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
> 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