Subject: RE: "straightforward, reasonable, and fair"

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:56:40 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Keith Moore

> or for that matter _Atlas Shrugged_?  (not that I agree with Rand on  
> everything, but she had this one pegged)

I beg to differ, the Middle ages demonstrated amply that the vast
majority of the populace are not going to complain if Atlas decides to
take a break. If Atlas expects gratitude then more fool him.

Today there are plenty of people who are pretty much demanding that
Atlas take a break and they show absolutely no sign of being concerned
about any consequences, nor do they display any capability to recognize
those consequences already apparent. If Atlas refuses to take a break
some of them are quite prepared to murder him the way the Atheneans
murdered Socrates.

I have no problem with placing the onus on those making a proposal to
pursuade the IESG that the proposal is understood and articulated in a
coherent fashion.

I do have a problem when the pushback is of the form 'I have a bad
feeling about this' with no further explanation or 'I want you to cast
this proposal in a form that promotes deployment of my pet project'.

Where I do have a very serious problem is when dealing with a WG chair
who is clearly using his position to promote his own predjudices above
the group consensus. 

As a matter of practical experience this situation cannot be dealt with
when a WG chair is also an AD, even if in another area. The AD of the
Chocholate area is not very likely to remove a WG chair who is also the
AD of the Strawberry area. Doing so is going to make is much more
difficult for Chocholate AD to work with the Strawberry AD on the IESG
in a collegial manner.

I think that there needs to be an explicit prohibition on ADs also being
WG chairs.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf