Hi Barry,
At 06:14 AM 10-07-2020, Barry Leiba wrote:
That wording was to be clear that 1-1-1-* is what the IETF community
wants to happen, but to allow IASA flexibility in implementing it,
given the realities of meeting venue selection and scheduling. We did
not want someone to get the mistaken idea that if we were unable to
secure, say, an Asian venue in one particular year, the policy was
being violated, while making it clear that IASA needs to do its
collective best to maintain the long-term balance as set out in
Section 2.
The policy is currently not working. It would be reasonable, in my
opinion, for me to go and argue with the IETF Administration LLC
about that as I am aware that there is a pandemic.
Indeed, and that absolutely needs to be dealt with. In fact, I,
personally, think it's one of the most important things we, as an
organization, have to deal with, and I hope we can move forward *now*
with what's been discussed on the eligibility list. Maybe
draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand is the right start for that, but we
MUST correct the situation wherein some of our active, valuable
participants do not have the same status simply because they don't
come to in-person meetings.
That said, I'm OK with separating that task from the tasks defined for SHMOO.
I just saw the message at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/O9r8TOGOY5KMawJMFw9e6YdXqdM/
I raised an issue about the milestones with the IESG. That is a
requirement, as specified in Section 2.2 of RFC 2418. In my opinion,
the action taken by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is
not compliant with RFC 2418 (BCP 25). It is very unfortunate that
the action was taken while the proposed charter was being discussed.
I don't think that it is appropriate for me to impose my views on you
or any other IESG member. if the IESG, as a whole, is not persuaded
by what I wrote previously, I doubt that there anything except for an
appeal could change that. May I ask for 48 hours to take a decision
about that?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
