Re: [Last-Call] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-crocker-inreply-react-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 3/3/2021 12:20 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:10:28PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> My understanding is that it is intentionally a supported part of the
> process for the IESG to be able to receive private feedback. 

Ben,

Of course.  And as an escape-hatch, for special circumstances, it's an 
important option.

But when it is used as a means of bypassing public discussion?

Of the two contacts we know about, using that option for this draft, one 
was not active in the public discussion.  Why?  The other was, but did 
not raise these concerns in that forum.  Why?

This is important, for an organization with such a profound reliance on 
open and inclusive participation and accountability.

There is a danger in not asking such 'whys' about people choice, because 
it has too much potential for creating an image of cronyism and 
back-room deals.


> The IESG or IESG members who receive feedback can do several things with
> that feedback, including incorporating the technical points made into their
> own ballot positions and asking for public discussion of those technical
> points, with or without the direct involvement of the person who submitted
> the feedback.
> 
> I think there's pretty universal sentiment that getting earlier feedback is
> preferred, but I don't think that adding more process is going to cause the
> phenomenon of late feedback to disappear.

"Preferred" is a characterization that makes a lot of sense for dealing 
constructively when someone happens to think of something later.

However I suggest that it is entirely too weak for dealing with folk who 
are attempting to bypass public discussion, especially when they already 
have a track record of public participation.


> P.S. I think there is still an open (editorial) question regarding "the
> message in which they both are present", for which I need more data to be
> able to suggest a resolution.

I responded to that point.  The wording is the best we -- there was 
public group discussion on it -- could come up with.

If it is not sufficient, better wording is of course eagerly sought.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net