RE: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process

> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> 
> >> 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning 
> procedures 
> >> from the IESG.
> > 
> > I don't think so.  I prefer that this responsibility stay 
> with a few 
> > individuals, so that it is taken very seriously -- not only by them 
> > but by everyone.  A committee would lead to dilution of 
> responsibility 
> > as well as endless discussion on every dispute.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> As much as I believe the IETF should not give veto authority 
> to any single individual, this is one case where it is 
> probably better.
> 
> My sense is that, without exception, IETF participants 
> involved in deciding process objections has taken their role 
> extremely seriously.  It's difficult to believe that this 
> would be any different.  In addition, any abuse by the 
> ombudsperson will be very quickly reported and corrected.
> 
> d/
> -- 
> 
>   Dave Crocker
Dave-

Of course it's a matter of opinion, so it's not like I'm trying to tell you
I'm right and you're wrong, but think about every high court in the United
states and many in Europe - none of them are 1 person but rather a group.
There are reasons for this, most important of which is no one is right all
the time - no one no matter how wisened sees every situation clearly from
all angles - not to  mention most everyone has their hot issues and areas of
predjudice or misunderstanding.  Having a group of seven or nine helps
neutralize individual errors.  I'd feel much safer being judged by tcp than
udp.

nick

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