Problem: Resolution mechanisms for when working group consensusreal problems)

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, 28 May, 2003 10:36 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
<harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:

> thanks; I see what you are aiming at now.
>
> my worry was probably tangential, but not entirely unrelated -
> that we could concentrate so much on getting the IETF to
> concentrate on the important matters with great impact (for
> good or bad) on the Internet architecture that we forget to
> allow for the smaller, peripheral things that Just Should Be
> Done.

I think the important point there is that, as with other things, 
we really need ADs and a functional IESG, to give them 
considerable discretion, and to avoid trying to micromanage the 
process from plenaries, mailing lists, or even a whipped-up mob. 
To keep an appropriate balance, that IESG needs to be open about 
its actions general directions, and priorities, and those things 
need to be available in a way that makes them subject to reviw. 
I think we have been doing relatively well, most of the time, on 
the "discretion" part, but somewhat less well on the openness, 
transparancy, and, on the part of a few ADs some of the time, 
receptiveness to review and community-mandated tuning of 
direction, strategies, or procedures.

> not that the impact is easy to gauge - see HTTP.....

indeed.
      john