Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 2:23 PM Dave Taht <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:20 PM Nico Williams <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 06:58:44PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > > >    Would the decision of an Area Director/IESG not to sponsor the
> > > >    draft be considered as behaviour that adversely affect the
> > > >    standardization process?
> > >
> > > No, because the concern seems to be about deciding the right venue
> > > where *more input* can be put into the document.
> >
> > +1.  AD decisions to not sponsor a draft are really not the sort of
> > decisions that can be appealed.  You've got two ADs per-area, if you
> > can't get either of them, or any of the others, to sponsor your draft,
> > then maybe you're doing things wrong.  A BoF/WG seems like a fine
> > starting point.
> >
> > I'd also like to second EKR's proposal that the IAB and IESG should get
> > a first crack at policing themselves.
>
> Is that something happening at this IESG retreat?
>

Two points here:
1. This was actually MSJ's suggestion on-list a few daya ago, though I
think it's an interesting one.
2. I am no longer on the IESG, so not at the retreat.

-Ekr


> > That wouldn't exclude a proper
> > recall mechanism that can be initiated outside the IAB/IESG, but maybe
> > we wouldn't need to make that mechanism too easy to start.  Lastly, a
> > mechanism for quickly dealing with frivolous petitions can make it
> > tolerable to make starting a recall process too easy.
> >
> > Nico
> > --
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Dave Täht
> CTO, TekLibre, LLC
> http://www.teklibre.com
> Tel: [phone]
>
>