Re: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



carl@xxxxxxxxx (Carl Malamud) writes:

> How about:
> 
> <section title="Community Consensus and Grant of Authority">
>   <t>
>     The IETF is a consensus-based group and authority to act on behalf
>     of the community is an act that requires a high degree of consensus

add "and transparency" here plz.

>     and the continued consent of the community
>     After a careful process of deliberation, there is a broad-based
>     community consensus to house the IETF Administrative &amp; Support
>     Activities (IASA) within the Internet Society, which is reflected
>     in this Best Current Practice (BCP) RFC.</t>
>   <t>
>     Termination and change.  Any change to this agreement shall require
>     a similar level of community consensus and deliberation and shall
>     be reflected by a subsequent Best Current Practice (BCP) RFC.
>   </t>  
> </section>
> 
> A termination clause is standard in any agreement and this one simply
> says "if you want to change this, get another bcp through the process."
> This doesn't address the "and we want to take our money with us" issue,
> but I believe that could be addressed elsewhere or not addressed at
> all.  Either way works for me.

any way you can work a "sunshine law" in will work for me.  i'm
concerned about the ways in which ietf has acted "in my name" WITHOUT my
consent or knowledge.  i know from private responses to my previous
threads on that topic that i'm not alone, not even rare, in having that
concern.  if a small band of "us" wishes to act in a leadership
capacity, take responsibility for forward progress, choose and manage an
administrator, and represent "our" position in discussions with
meatspace government, then by i insist upon knowing more about "their"
deliberations and decisions and actions than has ever been made public
in the history of "the ietf".  we can start by making "transparency" a
first class object, right up there with "consensus" -- even though by
most definitions you cannot have consensus without transparency, in ietf
we have absolutely separated them and so we have to explicitly reinstate
one.
-- 
Paul Vixie

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]