Re: [mpowr] Why MPOWR?

The problem I see with this is that the IESG (and IAB, and nomcom) are 
caught in the middle of a distinctly bimodal community.  A significant 
portion of the community (probably myself included) would be very happy 
with an approach that said "charter more easily, clsoe if the results / 
work starts to look bad."  The properties of this could be paraphrase as a 
direction to the leadership of "use you judgement." with the balance being 
that if they exhibit bad judgement the nomcom replaces them.
Another (apparently equally large, and clearly equally vociferous) portion 
of the community is extremely uncomfortable with the leadership just using 
their judgement.  Any time such judgement is used, they request detailed 
explanations.  If they disagree, they point to different behavior in the 
past an demand consistency.  This point of view is as defensible as the 
first one.

However, I can not imagine how leadership should behave when there are 
equally strong demands for two such antithetical positions.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: Yes, I think this aspect at least belongs on MPOWR, because this drives 
very directly the question of allowing WG Chairs to use their judgement.

At 11:26 AM 2/7/2004 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>If we want this to stop, we need to make it _very_ clear to the IESG, 
>clear enough to overwhelm the noise, that we are tired of it.  No more 
>BOFs, and especially no second BOFs, unless it is clear that useful 
>information is likely to come out of them. An accelerated chartering 
>process with clear community support for shutting down WGs that looked 
>marginal at charter time, were given a chance anyway, but aren't producing 
>(there may be elements of the O'Dell-Klensin and/or Huston-Rose proposals 
>from early in this reform process that might be useful here).

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