On 5/7/2010 4:57 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
I understand the need for IESG "Statements"
from time to time, but the very worst thing to possibly to be making such
statements about is the process by which the IESG (and more of course) is
selected - if there was anything about which there's an obvious and clear
conflict of interest, it is this.
This is an issue that must be sent to a working group to decide -
Oops.
Robert is correct that this cannot be an IESG decision. This must be an
IETF-wide decision.
I don't happen to think that requires a working group, and I'm fine with having
the IESG take the initiative and draft the relevant text to be an addendum to
the current Nomcom normative specification, and make an assessment of public
rough consensus. But the actual decision /must/ be IETF-wide and it must be
published as an addendum RFC asserting IETF-wide consensus.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf