Comments on draft-wasserman-rfc2418-update-00.txt

Pekka Savola pekkas at netcore.fi
Sun Oct 26 12:03:20 CET 2003


On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, James Kempf wrote:
[...]
> I think this will go a long way towards making the IETF process more
> scalable, and reducing the management burden on the IESG.

Yes, maybe the goal is to change the "big bad IESG" to "big bad WG
chair".. I'm not sure whether that's a bad thing, but that it might have
implications (such as, WG chairs getting fired more easily for not
standing up against bad ideas, WG chairs being required to commit a lot
more resources to the job (properly), decisions appealed more often and
all the time wasted processing the appeals and appeals on appeals, etc.).

It's just that _someone_ has to be able to tell the bad news about a
document.  Now it's easier when the WG chair can blame the AD, and the AD
can blame the WG ("good cop, bad cop" :-).  If you bundle these
responsibilities in one, the WG chair (acting responsibly) would be seen
as a lot more partial in the discussion.  The ADs and the IESG, as
currently done, don't have to care (.. that much).  Whether that's a bug
or feature is another thing..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list