Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> writes:

> Those are actually contradictory - as manager of the working group, the AD
> is expected to champion that group's work at the management level.  In fact,
> IESG rules actually require the AD to vote "yes" to any WG doc from their
> WG for the doc to be considered at all (what the rest of the IESG thinks
> about a doc is irrelevant unless the AD in question has approved it).
> So, to get the doc considered at all, the AD has to say it is fine, and
> the IETF has approved it - which puts them in the position of having to
> go against the expressed wishes of their working group, or perhaps misrepresent
> the actual wishes of the IETF as a whole (and if the AD happens to be
> mistaken in their judgement of the latter - believe that the doc isn't
> approved by the IETF, and tell the WG "no", then there is no way other than
> the appeals process for the rest of the IESG to correct the mistaken
> AD).

Clarification of how the IESG operates here. It is not a requirement
that the AD for the WG say yes in order to bring a document before the
IESG. It is required that *some* AD say yes (and that AD could be from
another area). This is to avoid a document being brought forward for
which no one is willing to champion it.

In practice, it is very rare that the shepherding AD take the step of
not saying yes. The more common route is for the AD (or co-AD) to say
yes, bring the document before the IESG and then explicitely discuss
the concerns he/she has with the rest of the IESG. A group discussion
then follows with regards to what should be done next.

Thomas