Query: adding additional AD

[Dave Crocker]

Melinda,

MS> Let's try to come to some closure on this.  Question: Should
MS> we add an additional AD to deal with process issues?  If

No.

I was under the impression that the resounding testimony at the IESG
plenary, in Yokohama, was of a rather broad and rather deep discontent
in the community, and that the discontent very much includes concerns
with IESG performance.

Placing responsibility for strategic change directly into the hands of
the people who have resisted making it is not a good way to ensure
results that are credible.

This is not about "intent" or "integrity" or anything else that is
personal.  It is about designing a process that makes sense for the work
that is to be done.  For this kind of process, what makes sense is to
have it led by people with a largely unencumbered history.

d/

ps. Lest we delve into the usual recitations of the wonderfulness of all
the people on the IESG, I'll note that indeed, everyone on the IESG is
wonderful. However, we are 10 months after Yokohama with no changes
implemented (compared with the entire process being done in 4 months
after Kobe) and the change process had no visible effort involving the
IESG until an independent change proposal was circulated.


--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>