Re: Late review management (Re: [Icar] independence of reviews; variability)

--On 11. mars 2004 10:40 -0500 Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> Harald> The right way to deal with ADs that are markedly at odds with
> IETF  Harald> consensus is to correct them, reeducate them or fire them.
>
> This view is hopelessly utopian.
>
> There really does  need to be something in the process  which prevents an
> AD with an  agenda from blocking  the output of  any WGs which don't
> share his agenda.

I don't think we disagree. But in the case of the current process, I see 
resolving a blockage as having 3 elements:

- Detecting that this is happening on a specific issue
- Resolving the specific issue
- If it happens more than a few times, do something about the AD

I've sometimes had mail to chair@ietf.org that worried about the first, and 
have sometimes been able to accomplish the second informally; so far, I 
haven't explicitly done the third.

> One advantage  of earlier, wider review  is that it may  make it
> politically more difficult for  an AD to carry out his own  political
> agenda.  The trick is to  find reviewers  outside the WG  who are
> experts in the  WG's subject matter and  who don't have  agendas of
> their own.  If  we can't come  to an understanding of how to do this,
> then ICAR itself may be too utopian.

I agree. While I believe less in the power of political agendas than you 
do, I believe that getting more reviewers into the process makes it FAR 
easier to see the difference between an AD (or any process gatekeeper) 
raising a concern that is widely shared in the community and raising a 
concern that has no backing.

It is one reason why I believe archiving reviews is an *essential* part of 
the process.

                             Harald

_______________________________________________
Icar mailing list
Icar@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar