Re: IESG Statement on disruptive posting

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

 



>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    JFC> I think we all are in agreement except on an idea Eudardo
    JFC> Mendez gave me. I will rephrase it as "if someting tastes as
    JFC> a WG, smells like a WG, its charter should be approved like
    JFC> for a WG". The non-WG list is only subject to the approbation
    JFC> of an AD. This opens the door to too many possible contention
    JFC> and COI suspicions. Logic and ethic calls for non-WG list
    JFC> receiving WG authority rights to be subject to WG creation
    JFC> cycle (obviously far faster). I think it should result from a
    JFC> simple change in the registration form and page display. It
    JFC> will say the status of the non-WG list approval and
    JFC> details. To be on the list an AD approval is enough. To get
    JFC> full WG priviledges the non-WG list will need to have the
    JFC> "IAB reviewed", "IESG approved", Area and ADs, etc.


In principle this sounds fine.  My confusion stems from the fact that
it's actually more restrictions that are applied to IETF lists than
privileges.

Here is what an IETf list implies to me:

* open participation
* an appeals path
* open archive
* IETf IPR

What privileges do you see?


_______________________________________________

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]