Joe,
Joe Touch wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
Keith,
The IESG can still exercise their best engineering judgment as
individuals, as the rest of us do.
The IESG role itself need not incorporate a privileged position from
which to wield that judgement. There's plenty left to do.
Joe,
The
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joe,
...
Re-reviewing 2026, in all places the IESG is noted as being largely
reactive to the community and guiding process.
Only sec 6.1.2 notes the application of technical judgement, but only
regarding maturity of the document and the standards level being sought
Keith Moore wrote:
If IESG people were to personally benefit from their exercise
of this privilege you'd have a valid gripe. But I don't
recall ever seeing this happen. If it does happen, I don't
think it happens very often.
Publishing mutually exclusive experimental RfCs simultaneously,
Keith Moore wrote:
Keith,
The IESG can still exercise their best engineering judgment as
individuals, as the rest of us do.
The IESG role itself need not incorporate a privileged position from
which to wield that judgement. There's plenty left to do.
Joe,
The IESG has several duties that
If IESG people were to personally benefit from their exercise of this
privilege you'd have a valid gripe.
Personal gain is not the only motive; power can be its own motive. The
gripes are validated by cases of abuse of privilege.
If there's no obvious personal interest, whether a particular
Keith Moore wrote:
Keith,
The IESG can still exercise their best engineering judgment as
individuals, as the rest of us do.
The IESG role itself need not incorporate a privileged position from
which to wield that judgement. There's plenty left to do.
Joe,
The IESG has several
Keith Moore wrote:
If IESG people were to personally benefit from their exercise of this
privilege you'd have a valid gripe.
Personal gain is not the only motive; power can be its own motive. The
gripes are validated by cases of abuse of privilege.
If there's no obvious personal
2026 separates process management from _independent_ technical review,
IMO for good reason.
I think you're reading more emphasis on independence than was intended
in 2026. But this is also subjective.
History reminds us of the abuses of power that started with act first,
appeal later.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
2026 separates process management from _independent_ technical review,
IMO for good reason.
I think you're reading more emphasis on independence than was intended
in 2026. But this is also subjective.
History reminds us
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
External reviews are what I'm favoring - external, independent reviews.
so when IESG provides the external review, that's bad, but when someone
else does external review, that's good?
Yup. When judges decide cases, that's
External reviews are what I'm favoring - external, independent reviews.
so when IESG provides the external review, that's bad, but when someone
else does external review, that's good? I disagree. part of IESG's purpose
is to do review from a broad perspective.
External reviews are what I'm favoring - external, independent reviews.
so when IESG provides the external review, that's bad, but when someone
else does external review, that's good?
Yup. When judges decide cases, that's bad. When juries do, that's good.
not necessarily. judges can
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
...
However, consider instead the situation we find ourselves in. The IESG,
at least in the interpretation as given on this list by some of its
members, has said, essentially, We have concluded that this requires
technical review within the IETF before it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
Nothing like responsibility to look after the overall technical health of
the
Internet was assigned to the IESG.
You seem to be forgetting something, Dave.
Every IETF participant is supposed to use his best engineering
Keith,
The IESG can still exercise their best engineering judgment as
individuals, as the rest of us do.
The IESG role itself need not incorporate a privileged position from
which to wield that judgement. There's plenty left to do.
Joe,
The IESG has several duties that are defined in RFC
My thoughts on reading the IPv6 H/H Option discussion:
Some technical decisions about the Internet protocol suite are
more important that others. Decisions about application-layer
issues are of course important to particular segments of the
community and
After Kobe, the IETF established the IESG and IAB as twin
oversight bodies with some responsibility to look after
the overall technical health of the Internet, especially
the important parts.
Bob,
As I recall, you were on the IAB that was deposed after the Kobe
Nothing like responsibility to look after the overall technical health of
the
Internet was assigned to the IESG.
You seem to be forgetting something, Dave.
Every IETF participant is supposed to use his best engineering judgement
as to what is best for the Internet as a whole, when making
You seem to think that every IETF participant _except_ those on IESG
should do so. You seem to think that everyone else should be able to
exercise their judgement but that the IESG should just serve as
process facilitators and rubber stamp technical decisions that others
make.
Perhaps
Bob Braden wrote:
Such decisions must be made very, very
carefully, with considerable care and not a little wisdom.
That's the problem.
Take it easy.
Masataka Ohta
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
into a discussion. However - I believe it is
mainly a case of making sure that they believe that the processes were
correctly followed and giving weight to the factors that affect their
determination of consensus.
Bill
Original Message
Subject: Re: Should the IESG rule or not? and all
You seem to think that every IETF participant _except_ those on IESG
should do so. You seem to think that everyone else should be able to
exercise their judgement but that the IESG should just serve as
process facilitators and rubber stamp technical decisions that others
make.
Bob,
I am in violent agreement with much of what you say. The
differences may be interesting...
--On Friday, July 01, 2005 10:41 AM -0700 Bob Braden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My thoughts on reading the IPv6 H/H Option discussion:
Some technical decisions about the Internet
Dave Crocker wrote:
You seem to think that every IETF participant _except_ those on IESG
should do so. You seem to think that everyone else should be able to
exercise their judgement but that the IESG should just serve as
process facilitators and rubber stamp technical decisions that others
24 matches
Mail list logo
