Re: SUMMARY: serving on both IAB and IESG concurrently

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>]

My concern is that, as stated, it is probably almost impossible to ever 
agree that there is a problem, much less a clearly understood problem.

One of the consequences of confidentiality is that it is hard to see what 
went on.  We should not remove most of that confidentiality.  But it does 
make it very hard to observe a problem.  Therefore, we must deduce one from 
the results.  While I disagree with Marshall about whether there has been 
insufficient turnover, he is reasonably looking at an observable to try to 
see if there is an underlying problem.

For example, in discussing the degree of oversight the review bodies do or 
should have, we are speculating on a number of fronts, including what the 
real current interaction is, what the current perception of the review 
bodies as to their rights and authority are, and how effective or 
ineffective the current feedback mechanism is in provide a check on the 
nomcom choices.
I believe that the current review bodies see themselves as not having the 
practical ability to say no.  However, there is no way I can "prove" that.
Similarly, without insulting someone there is no way to make a case that 
review is needed, and most of us quite reasonably do not want to get into 
insulting anyone, or into discussing perceptions of people.  There is no 
way such a discussion can lead to anything useful, so we again see that 
agreeing on a clearly stated problem is going to be difficult, since the 
evidence must of necessity be indirect.

Yours,
Joel

At 12:44 PM 3/30/02 -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> Personally, I'm in favour of not making any changes unless and
> until the _problem_ has been clearly understood.
>
> We don't need to tie ourselves in knots with extraneous process
> rules that will only trip us up when unforeseen circumstances
> arise.
>
> If there is a problem, let's discuss, solve and document it.  Otherwise,
> let's drop it.
>
> Leslie.