I've trimmed the cc list to people I believe are interested in IETF process discussions.

>>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com> writes:

Dean> ietf@ietf.org removed per Sam Hartman's request.
Dean> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Russ Housley wrote:

>> Dean:
>>
>> I always recuse myself from IESG evaluation of a document for
>> which I am an author. You will find this to be the normal
>> practice for all IESG members.

Dean> If you follow the 'normal' practice, then I think maybe you
Dean> haven't recused yourself, but perhaps have merely abstained
Dean> from voting. I note that participation in the IESG
Dean> discussion is not recusal. Advocacy is not recusal. I note
Dean> also that you did not object to Carpenter's continued
Dean> advocacy after claiming to have recused himself during one
Dean> Appeal I raised with the IESG, so I rather wonder if you
Dean> have perhaps engaged in the same behavior. Recusal means to
Dean> not participate in the decision. If you participate in IESG
Dean> discussions on the subject, or even discuss it with other
Dean> members during a telechat, or in person, or on the phone,
Dean> you are involved in the IESG decision and haven't recused.
Dean> Perhaps, given that understanding, you may want to
Dean> reconsider your answer about recusal.

Dean does have a bit of a point here. The IESG has what I consider to
be a nasty tendency for people to recuse themselves from decisions
related to appeals in that they do not vote, but for example to
contribute to the discussion and to even write text for the decision.
(No, Dean, the example I'm thinking of is not one of your appeals.)

In teh case of appeals we've been careful to say "recused . . . from
the decision." rather than from the process. However I do suspect
that many community members do not note the distinction and are not
aware of its implications.

In the case of recuse ballots, it is common and appropriate for
authors to continue to act in their author role--talking to the IESG
as authors, etc.

It's even desirable that authors who have recused themselves stay on
the calls while their documents are being addressed. It's harmless
that they be able to answer questinos.

It starts to get problematic when they try to persuade the IESG or to
take advantage of mail only sent to the iesg list.

--Sam