Document Blocking (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt)

[Pete Resnick]

On 5/16/03 at 2:49 PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>  >          5. Modify IESG-internal processes to make it impossible for one
>>              or two IESG members to block a document.
>
>There is a strong implication here that ADs might do this for 
>spurious reasons.

I don't think it makes a difference to the issue, but let's even 
assume that it is *not* done for spurious reasons.

>But if one or both Security ADs are deeply convinced that a draft 
>constitutes a major security risk, or one or both Routing ADs are 
>convinced that a draft will lead to routing loops, isn't it quite 
>appropriate for them to block the document?

Absolutely not, but *not* because the document shouldn't be stopped. 
The ADs who think that there is a serious problem with a document 
should convince the rest of the IESG that the document is a bad idea. 
Then, the IESG can come to consensus (or unanimity) to reject a 
document (or at least stop it until the problem is fixed).

The problem with the current process (as I understand it) is that it 
allows documents to be blocked by one or two IESG members without the 
consensus of the group. The current procedure assumes that one or two 
IESG members must be able to block a document because the rest of the 
IESG is so stupid or ignorant that they cannot be convinced that the 
document is a bad idea, even if one or two experts on the IESG know 
that it is. If that were actually the case, it points to a much worse 
state of affairs, where IESG members don't trust each other to do the 
right thing.

>Such cases suggest failures much earlier in the process, not 
>misbehaviour by the IESG.

For  case where the entire IESG comes to consensus that a document 
should be stopped, yes, that suggests a very early process failure. 
But cases where it is required that one or two IESG members can, 
without consensus, block a document, suggests serious misbehavior on 
the part of the rest of the IESG.

>So I don't think we should fix this, because it is actually a vital 
>back-stop, not a bug.

We already have a backstop for each of the cases:

1. In the case of a bad document, the IESG can come to consensus that 
a document is bad.

2. In the case of a bad document where one or two IESG members can't 
convince the rest of the IESG, the one or two members can appeal, or 
initiate recall procedures on the rest of the IESG.

I really wish someone could explain to me why we think it is 
necessary to have IESG members vetoing each other's decisions as a 
backstop.
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick at qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102