Leslie Daigle wrote: > > Note that I never said that the IAB was not part of the > IETF family/universe/collection. > > The important thing is that the IAB is independent in > its decision making, and not subject to the IESG's > whims or strictly bound by the IETF's input, which appeared to > be the key elements in your concerns of IETF "ownership". > > draft-iab-rfc-editor-01 (now in the repository) lays out a > framework for the IAB to ensure there is a (broader-than-IETF) > community-defined RFC series, with community input and > feedback. > > So -- it's a proposal for community-driven RFC Series > not under IETF (IESG) control. So: - the IAB is part of the IETF family - draft-iab-rfc-editor-01 (surprise) lays out a framework where the IAB (i.e., IETF family) declares itself responsible for ensuring broader-than-IETF input/feedback to the RFC series My position is that: - the RFC series includes independent submissions (at least at this point let's assume that, but we - the non-IETF community - may need to revisit if the rest is not possible - which is why I'm including independent@xxxxxxxx in this discussion. note: it's unfortunate that this discussion is continuing here, rather than there. - independent submissions MUST NOT assume or require IETF family control - either direct or indirect A board of directors/advisors is fine, but NOT the IAB, IETF, or IETF family, and NOT appointed by the IAB, IETF, or IETF family. - independent documents MUST NOT be required to include IETF-family disownership assertions *independent* means that. It does NOT mean IETF-family controlled. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf