you mean actually saying what I mean.....? what a novel concept :-)1.1 The role of the IESG The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is the group that exists to perform the overarching operational and technical management functions of the Internet Engineeering Task Force (IETF).s/exists to//changed from previous versions - I wanted to emphasize that the IESG doesn't have any other purpose than to be IETF management. The previous version had "is the function", but Brian Carpenter didn't like a group of people being called a function. Better language?"exists to" adds zero semantic protein and sounds domineerings/overarching//the point raised was that WG chairs perform management functions too. I wanted some way to say that the IESG doesn't do all the management functions of the IETF, but that "the buck stops here". Better language?The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is where the buck stops for the internal operational and all technical management functions of the Internet Engineeering Task Force (IETF).
o The IETF Chair, who may also function as an Area Director when appropriatewho is also the director of the general area. do not imply that this gives you the position to be the AD for arbitrary wgs.I had the general area in the previous version, and John Klensin told me to avoid casting the existence of that area, or the need for the chair to be an AD, in stone.no areas are cast in stone. then The IETF Chair also currently functions as the Area Director of the General Area.
works.
we have a specific para on appeals now. I'll add that exclusion there (for version -03).However, discussion of personnel matters and possibly legal and financial matters may sometimes be required to be kept confidential, and the chair may, with the consent of the full members, exclude liaison and ex officio members whose presence is seen as inappropriate for the particular discussion from such discussions.also exclusion of conflicted folk when discussing things such as appealsmumble. The tradition has been that the IESG discusses an appeal against a decision with all ADs present, including the AD responsible for the area in which the appealed decision was taken. This has been thought to be good because it provided maximum information about the background - I think. What about the following strawman? <t>The chair may also apply exclusion to full members who have a serious conflict of interest on an issue. Members can also choose to recuse themselves from discussion of an issue, or refrain from casting a vote on an issue, if they feel that is appropriate.</t>i was specifically thinking of exclusion of iab folk