Subject: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:Doingthe Right Things?)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:41:29 -0700

Randy Writes:

not completely true.  increasingly, directorates and less formal
constructs are being used as document and srchitecture review
teams.  this is a massive help, at least for me.

The reason that so many people have no confidence in the IETF is exactly
this type of closed and unaccountable process by the inner circle.

That type of behavior is not open and it is not inclusive. It is an old boys
network (and yes they almost always are boys).

You can call the IETF what you will, but you cannot defend that as an open
process.

Why then is it to be considered superior to closed decisions taken behind
corporate doors? How are you going to defend your closed decisions in
persuit of your private interests against their closed decisions?

		Phill

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 23:23:56 +0200

It would be a problem if a design team or directorate (which are
explicitly not open, as Phill says) proposed a solution that did
not meet rough consensus in the WG or at IETF Last Call and then
the IESG put that solution on standards track. That would in fact
be a major violation of RFC 2026.

However, the use of closed teams to propose solutions that can be
accepted or refused by WGs is a completely valid part of the process,
and in one form or another occurs in most if not all standards
bodies. WGs do not, in the real world, write documents collectively.
They are always written by individuals or subgroups.

  Brian