Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

[todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <narten@us.ibm.com>
To: "Robert Elz" <kre@MUNNARI.OZ.AU>
Cc: <ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>; <poised@lists.tislabs.com>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?


> 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.

But the whole point is that the Infrastructure (the Management) of the IETF
and the IESG ***MUST*** by this model approve and champion everything that
is submitted. So I have a protocol that challenges a prexisting one, what
happens here? The answer is simple - with todays model, whatever the IESG
members and their WG chair employees want to.

I used the term "employees", becuase to many of the WG Chairs, this activity
is part of their professional life and so it is a job to them and this is
part of the problem to say the least.

>
> 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.

But how then is the IESG made accoutnable for what they advance. And isnt
the IESG then respeonsible to some extent in creating and preserving the
value of the I-D's RFC's and Proposed Standards submitted to them for
review?

>
> Thomas