Re: Another IESG Charter revision

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

Following up a bit, I just spoke with Scott. He raises the concern
that if ADs shepherd random documents while others are sent via the
rfc editor submission process, we raise questions about whether some
documents are getting more favorable treatment than others. I.e., the
whole klensin discussion about the role of the IESG in reviewing
non-WG documents.

So, if ADs are going to do this, they better have reasonable criteria
for when to do one vs. the other. I guess there are potential appeal
issues here if someone is unhappy about how their ID has been
treated. Or feels that an AD is given special treatement to one
document over another.

Personally, I have taken on the shepherding of documents when it
seemed clear to me that were they to get submitted via the rfc editor
process, I'd end up as the stuckee anyway. So why bother with the
extra step.

So, a more complex topic than first appears.

PS, in the case of the SLP documents, there could be multiple views on
how they should be handled. All 4 were submitted some 8 months ago at
the same time, so if they are getting "special" or "expedited"
treatment, the results don't seem to support that... If the goal of
the submission was to publish ASAP, I'm pushing back pretty
strongly. And I didn't exactly put them in front of the IESG
quickly. I did my AD review, asked for revs, and pushed back pretty
hard on some points. But I also got help from Erik Guttman (former SLP
chair) on some of the pushback. Was all this appropriate? I think so,
but not everyone might agree. 

Thomas