Re: Comments on draft-iesg-charter-02.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

> There is a further problem, IMO, with how the IESG reviews
> documents -- the "voting" procedure, particularly the "DISCUSS"
> vote.  Again, this procedure grants authority to a single AD that
> is not explicitly granted by any process documents, and the process
> of resolving these issues is not sufficiently open.

in most (but not all cases) the IESG is in consensus that there
is a problem and the DISCUSS is a way to delegate the writing up of the
issues and checking the resolution - in those cases chaging from
the current process to some other one wiuld just make things harder to get 
resolved and add more work to the other IESG members.  A different
process would just mean that more  ADs would send in "me too" messages
some with slightly different contents and would have to OK the resolution - 
the way it is now, there is generally one writeup on a particular problem
and one AD that can say "OK"

to me, the other cases are a real problem but I have no particular idea
how to deal with them

see previous note about openness - *everything* should go into the
tracker to make sure that there are no backroom discussions

Scott