Re: Another IESG Charter revision

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Thomas,

  I would say we just use our judgement to chose which documents
  to take, and let the NomCom fix the bugs if they are so huge, as
  we do with BOF, for example. We seem to be getting too deep into
  potential procedural/political aspects, but we should also be
  able to just do the right thing... my 2 kopeikas...

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Tuesday, April 8, 2003, 11:49:39 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 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